47% of American Families pay ZERO federal income taxes

[printcraft]

Just to stir things up, but an even larger percentage of corporations don't pay taxes either.

Well, mine is certainly not in that category.

 

[ghitch75]

<---self-employed= work half the year to pay TAXES....wrote off everything i could legally and still had to pay $4500.00!!!!......don't get me started ....these ppl on welfare make more and get back more than i do for not hittin' a F$%^ing lick!!!!

 

[dross]

If that were true, business would not spend millions of dollars a year trying to avoid taxes and trying to convince you they could not be taxed. Let me say this again since it seems to be what you think makes something true, BUSINESS WOULDN'T SPEND MILLIONS EVERY YEAR TRYING TO BEND TAX RULES IF THEY COULD NOT BE TAXED.

Taxes and or costs are not what determines the price you pay for any thing. The cost the public is willing to pay is what set's the price a business charges.

You can see some of the pieces, but you don't know how to tie them together.

Business tries to avoid taxes for a variety of reasons. First, there's all kinds of targeted taxes that don't make things fair across the board. Also, if I have a business and you have a business, and we're taxed equally, if I can use the tax laws to avoid more taxes than you, I have a competitive advantage. It's BECAUSE all expenses must be recovered from the final consumer that businesses work so hard to avoid taxes.

Also, in certain types of businesses, there is a tipping point where people will stop buying a particular product and buy a different one if the price becomes too high. For instance, Denver instituted some special taxes a few years ago that affected a variety of delivery businesses. Many weren't too bothered by it, but it caused many pizza parlors to relocate. Why? Because the price point increased enough that people bought another kind of food.

As to what determines cost, you've identified only one type of pricing. Yes, ultimately the market will always determine the final price. In some cases, the margins are such that cost isn't a particularly big issue. That's rare. In most businesses, even though market determines price, competition has driven the price down so low that only careful management of expenses makes the difference between profit and no profit. Part of managing expenses is managing tax liability.

None of that changes the simple formula that all money taken in by a business comes from the final consumer, and therefore all the bills the company pays, whether it's the lights or taxes, also is paid by the final consumer.

What I'm telling you is not opinion. It seems like opinion becasue 90% of what people hear out in the world seems to contradict it. What I'm telling you is fact. Look over my posts and see how rarely I make a statement that concrete. I stand by it.

 

[bigiron]

Nothing in that article contradicts anything dross said. It doesn't matter who hands the check to the tax man, the consumer is the one that ultimately pays it.

allow me to clarify and appologize to dross. not everything dross has said i disagree with. i mearly think that saying we cannot tax a corporation is severely misunderstood. in the article i posted it spoke of direct and indirect taxes. direct taxes are unconstitutional to be handed to the citizen, only the states have that power. so, a federal income tax imposed on you and me is unconstitutional. the federal government has to tax the coprorations to get their money. you're all right, the consumer will untimately pick up the tab. that being said, that is the indirect tax we all face. so, back the OPs point, the fed has to find ways to tax the citizen because of the ignorant tax levies and free trade agreements the government has imposed over the last 30 years. spending on welfare and special intrest projects have bankrupted the fed so they have to force taxes on the citizen and thats why those on welfare don't pay taxes and you and i, mr. and mrs. working man and woman, have to pick up the tab. now, taxing the coproration will only dirve up prices, thats understood. so in return for tax breaks, the corportations should produce goods in america, by american workers which balances the economy. for this to work fed. government spending has to be in check, which its not.

don't misunderstand me as being a socialist or for protectionism, although by definition i could be a fan. i'm simply saying that the working man is being hosed by the government for all the overspending in the special intrest sector(ie. welfare, lobbyist, and out of control pocket-lining). so, why place the burden directly on me and you while giving GM billions for producing half of its good in mexico? why not tax GM on those imported goods, but offer them a tax break if they produce them in america by american workers? win, win, win which was what our founding fathers fought for since the Boston tea party. same principle, england taxed the hell outta our tea while producing it in england and not giving our colonies a share of the money or a voice in parliment. so we rebelled. we see the same trends happening today. much of society profits from the taxes raised from those few who pay. its not fair and balanced. we can all agree that its not fair for GM or AIG to profit from our money while not paying a penalty for producing goods in another country or outsourcing their services to india or the middle east. how many workers have been laid off in mexico or other countries due to our recession?

i'm not disagreeing with any of you that taxes suck. our tax system is flawed and we, the working, get screwed. i'm just pointing out that we should not have to bear this burden alone while others fly around in coroporate jets and have corporate retreats on our dime without penalty. we, the people, should be protected by our government from corporations exploiting our tax dollars, not giving tax breaks to the corporation for importing goods from china while using my money to bail them out.

 

[dross]

allow me to clarify and appologize to dross. not everything dross has said i disagree with. i mearly think that saying we cannot tax a corporation is severely misunderstood. in the article i posted it spoke of direct and indirect taxes. direct taxes are unconstitutional to be handed to the citizen, only the states have that power. so, a federal income tax imposed on you and me is unconstitutional..

First, you owe me no apologies, you've been civil.

Second, where are you getting your idea about direct taxes being unconstitutional? If it's about the amendment not being ratified, that's been argued and covered and I won't pick up the bait, but I think you're basing your ideas on something else.

 

[bigiron]

Are you saying you're in favor of protectionism?

by websters definition i could be a fan. Protection - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

the government should be watching over these corporations making sure the tax-paying citizen is protected, not exploited. unfortunately, our system works in the opposite and in MHO its killing us, look at the value of the dollar. if the government wants to dabble in someones business i would rather it be done while looking out for us instead of finding ways to fleece the working people.

 

[Fletch]

by websters definition i could be a fan. Protection - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

the government should be watching over these corporations making sure the tax-paying citizen is protected, not exploited. unfortunately, our system works in the opposite and in MHO its killing us, look at the value of the dollar. if the government wants to dabble in someones business i would rather it be done while looking out for us instead of finding ways to fleece the working people.

I'm still not very clear on exactly how you think the working people are being exploited/fleeced through some kind of Faustian bargain with corporations. And what does the value of the dollar have to do with any of this discussion? The dollar's value has dropped entirely due to government, via the Federal Reserve, inflating the currency without regard for reality.

 

[dross]

by websters definition i could be a fan. Protection - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

the government should be watching over these corporations making sure the tax-paying citizen is protected, not exploited. unfortunately, our system works in the opposite and in MHO its killing us, look at the value of the dollar. if the government wants to dabble in someones business i would rather it be done while looking out for us instead of finding ways to fleece the working people.

Protectionism only helps SOME working people at the expense of all the others. For instance, if we protect the steel business, we help those workers in the short run, but we hurt the auto workers because they now buy their steel at artificially high prices, which puts them at a competitive disadvantage with foreign auto makers. I

If we protect the textile workers, it just means all the working folks who could spend less on clothes now spend more.

Protectionism is the politicians game of being able to show you the people he's helped by high import taxes, but doesn't show you all the people hurt by higher prices.

Protectionism in the long run hurts everyone at the expense of helping a few in the short run.

 

[bigiron]

I'm still not very clear on exactly how you think the working people are being exploited/fleeced through some kind of Faustian bargain with corporations. And what does the value of the dollar have to do with any of this discussion? The dollar's value has dropped entirely due to government, via the Federal Reserve, inflating the currency without regard for reality.

first, why should we have to "bail out" a corporation? but the government did with our money. that burden was solely put on our shoulders even thought these corporations were to pay back the money over time. why should we pay for their bad business sense? they were deemed to big to fail so we, the taxpayer, steped in to rescue them. the government did not give us a voice in that decision, they went ahead and did what was best for the corporation. secondly, why is the dollar next to worthless? our national debt is huge due to all the spending and therefore we've had to sell bonds to china and everyone else. those bonds appear to be wothless therefore our dollar loses value making the government work harder to find money to account for all the debt. so, where is the burden placed, on the taxpayer. thats how i see it adding up.

 

[bigiron]

Protectionism only helps SOME working people at the expense of all the others. For instance, if we protect the steel business, we help those workers in the short run, but we hurt the auto workers because they now buy their steel at artificially high prices, which puts them at a competitive disadvantage with foreign auto makers. I

If we protect the textile workers, it just means all the working folks who could spend less on clothes now spend more.

Protectionism is the politicians game of being able to show you the people he's helped by high import taxes, but doesn't show you all the people hurt by higher prices.

Protectionism in the long run hurts everyone at the expense of helping a few in the short run.

i see your point, thats why i said i could be a fan if worked in properly. for this to work we would have to change our whole economic system, from the tax structure to the way we manufacture. instead of buying gym shoes made in taiwan, buy shoes made here in america by american workers. the government mearly makes sure that any material imported is taxed correctly. if the coroporation doesn't want to pay the higher tax, they should produce the material here for a tax break. i could see how this would level the price of goods and keep people working. otherwise, with special intrests and lobbyist working hard to corrupt these principles, this protectionism would never have a chance. it definately would hurt us.

 

[rambone]

first, why should we have to "bail out" a corporation?

I doubt any of these guys think we should have bailed out any corporations.

But you can't justify one government abomination with a tax that will further screw up the markets and hurt consumers.

 

[dross]

i see your point, thats why i said i could be a fan if worked in properly. for this to work we would have to change our whole economic system, from the tax structure to the way we manufacture. instead of buying gym shoes made in taiwan, buy shoes made here in america by american workers. the government mearly makes sure that any material imported is taxed correctly. if the coroporation doesn't want to pay the higher tax, they should produce the material here for a tax break. i could see how this would level the price of goods and keep people working. otherwise, with special intrests and lobbyist working hard to corrupt these principles, this protectionism would never have a chance. it definately would hurt us.

The problem is that we can't get every single thing we need right here. We must buy some things from other countries. We also sell to them, and if we tax their imports, they'll tax ours. We just hurt ourselves, and there's no way to structure it where it won't. It's just a bad idea that can be made to sound good, because it's very complex and it's easy to pretend that this part over here can be improved, and then hide the part over there that's being harmed.

 

[Fletch]

first, why should we have to "bail out" a corporation?

We shouldn't. Ever.

secondly, why is the dollar next to worthless? our national debt is huge due to all the spending and therefore we've had to sell bonds to china and everyone else. those bonds appear to be wothless therefore our dollar loses value making the government work harder to find money to account for all the debt. so, where is the burden placed, on the taxpayer. thats how i see it adding up.

These bonds are only the most recent manifestation of government devaluing the currency; they are a symptom, not a cause. It's been going on since the Federal Reserve was founded in 1913.

 

[Jack Ryan]

If you believe this, then it should be OK with you to impose a 1000% tax on every firearm produced by any company, so long as it's paid by the company, because that means the price of guns won't go up.

Hey, it's win-win. Let's call Chuckie Schumer together and see if we can convince him it's a good idea.

They won't go up if no one will pay it.

If you believe it's impossible to tax corporations then you shouldn't mind a 100% tax on them either. They'll just raise their prices and go on their merry way business as usual.

 

[Jack Ryan]

You can see some of the pieces, but you don't know how to tie them together.

Kid you are the one with his string in a tangle. You saying it doesn't make if fact, even if Rush told it to you.

 

[Fletch]

They won't go up if no one will pay it.

If no one will pay it, the company goes out of business. The corporate entity cares about one thing and one thing only: having a positive cash flow at the end of the day. If it does not have that, it dies. Congrats, you just ended gun manufacturing.

If you believe it's impossible to tax corporations then you shouldn't mind a 100% tax on them either. They'll just raise their prices and go on their merry way business as usual.

Why shouldn't I mind? Of course I should mind... the rising prices affect my ability to purchase goods and services. That's the whole point we've been trying to make to you -- every tax you propose on corporations raises the cost to the consumer... the working man... the people of America.

Taxes on corporations are taxes on the people. If you propose to levy a "windfall profits" (or whatever other cockamamie tax you care to imagine) on any given corporation or sector of the economy, you are in effect proposing a tax on the people who purchase their goods or services. Tax insurance companies, the cost of insurance goes up. Tax gun companies, the cost of guns goes up. Tax agribusiness, the cost of food goes up. If the final profitable price rises above what the market will bear, the company goes out of business, its products and services are no longer available, and society as a whole is relatively impoverished. None of this is a good thing.

 

[hornadylnl]

If no one will pay it, the company goes out of business. The corporate entity cares about one thing and one thing only: having a positive cash flow at the end of the day. If it does not have that, it dies. Congrats, you just ended gun manufacturing.



Why shouldn't I mind? Of course I should mind... the rising prices affect my ability to purchase goods and services. That's the whole point we've been trying to make to you -- every tax you propose on corporations raises the cost to the consumer... the working man... the people of America.

Taxes on corporations are taxes on the people. If you propose to levy a "windfall profits" (or whatever other cockamamie tax you care to imagine) on any given corporation or sector of the economy, you are in effect proposing a tax on the people who purchase their goods or services. Tax insurance companies, the cost of insurance goes up. Tax gun companies, the cost of guns goes up. Tax agribusiness, the cost of food goes up. If the final profitable price rises above what the market will bear, the company goes out of business, its products and services are no longer available, and society as a whole is relatively impoverished. None of this is a good thing.

Fletch,

We are trying to bring logic to a debate on envy. Emotion will win out with these people every time. Who is John Galt?

 

[dross]

Kid you are the one with his string in a tangle. You saying it doesn't make if fact, even if Rush told it to you.

Your ignorance is obvious to anyone who has a minimal understanding of business and economics, which you clearly do not. As to Rush, not particularly a fan.

My declaring something doesn't make it so. What I'm saying, however, is so basic and simple to the subjects at hand as to be obvious to anyone who has studied them at all. Just as is your ignorance of these issues.

 

[SavageEagle]

No, it's not. You should do it, and this comes from a libertarian.

You've paid in, you've served your country, and the cost of all this crap has been imposed on you, and will be imposed on you and your childrent for the rest of your lives. I deplore these programs, yet I'll take advantage shamelessly of any for which I am eligible. This is the game they've set up, and you can take personal advantage of it, even while you fight the concept. Look at it as getting back some of what has been stolen from you.

And people on here mopped the floor with me when I said we got back a crap load from the EITC on our tax return, yet NO one bashed you even a little bit for this. That's just absolutely amazing.

 

[hornadylnl]

And people on here mopped the floor with me when I said we got back a crap load from the EITC on our tax return, yet NO one bashed you even a little bit for this. That's just absolutely amazing.

first of all, look at the context of the post. He is replying to a disabled vet who feels guilty about filing for eitc when he has paid $0 in federal income taxes. Notice he doesn't feel entitled to it. If you left part of yourself on the battlefield, I think most of us would be more than happy to pay for your eitc. I'm sure combatvet would be out in the workforce earning his own keep had he not been wounded serving us.

When do you leave for basic training.