Refresh your driving skills with the AARP Smart Driver online course! Use promo code THANKS to save 25 percent.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
299
Views

Re: Profitable US Companies - No Taxes Paid?

299 Views
Message 41 of 110

@sp362 wrote:

rk9152 wrote"And this is the last time I am going to explain that the issue is not what motivates the consumer to buy. It is not a matter whether or not consumers have a choice. It is much simpler than that - taxes paid are a cost of doing business and are reflected in the price - hence, the consumer pays the taxes (albeit indirectly)."

 

You are forcing consumers to support companies even if they are not buying their products.  It is a matter of choice, whether you want to ackowledge or not.


Let's try to boil this down it the basics. I believe that any taxes a company pays comes from it's cash inflow. The cash inflow comes from the customers. Ergo, it really is the customers money that is paying the taxes.

 

Can we agree on that?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
299
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
303
Views

Re: Profitable US Companies - No Taxes Paid?

303 Views
Message 42 of 110

rk9152 wrote"And this is the last time I am going to explain that the issue is not what motivates the consumer to buy. It is not a matter whether or not consumers have a choice. It is much simpler than that - taxes paid are a cost of doing business and are reflected in the price - hence, the consumer pays the taxes (albeit indirectly)."

 

You are forcing consumers to support companies even if they are not buying their products.  It is a matter of choice, whether you want to ackowledge or not.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
303
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
315
Views

Re: Profitable US Companies - No Taxes Paid?

315 Views
Message 43 of 110

@umbarch64 wrote:

@rk9152  You are not wrong....however...the taxes passed on may not reflect the actual costs a jurisdictions tax base pays for producing a product. You with me there?  IF that's the case, that 'excess' cost will be paid by someone else in the tax chain. It doesn't get passed on. That's a subsidy of sorts, even if it is not called that. 

 

Your point appears self-evident and expandable.  It isn't.  Accepting it literally would lead to a false conclusion that all taxes are reflected in the price of the product.  They are not.   Again...you are not wrong.  

 

Regarding complexity...complexity facilitates manipulation.  It should not be so, but it is. Laws and credits and exemptions et al are complex for purpose...none of it good.


I agree with a lot of the above but not the part of taxes not included in the price. Once established, a company has cash inflow and cash outflow. The outflow (including taxes) is funded by inflow (that paid by the consumer). I can't imagine where else the money comes from.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
315
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
309
Views

Re: Profitable US Companies - No Taxes Paid?

309 Views
Message 44 of 110

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

rk9152 wrote "How does a corporation "pay it's fair share" when they are merely passing the cost to the consumer and, in effect, just acting as a tax collection agency for the government?  It comes down to the user of the end service paying the full cost for it and not expecting others to supplement the cost of what they are consuming.

Exactly, they pay the full cost including all that goes into bringing that product to market - including the taxes.

 

The citizens ARE paying those taxes but being fooled with all this foolishness by the pols claiming they are going to make the corporations pay.  They are not being fooled by having to pay a price that fully reflects all of the costs.  They always have a choice of what and how much to buy.  You do not have a choice with the taxes you are paying.

Exactly - once you have shopped around and decided where to buy the product, the price you pay includes the taxes they will end up paying. 

 

I notice you didn't bother to comment on my question about personal choice.

Of course I did - "How does a corporation "pay it's fair share" when they are merely passing the cost to the consumer and, in effect, just acting as a tax collection agency for the government?".


Because not everybody consumes their goods and services equally.



How the heck does that relate to the actual source of the revenue used to pay the taxes? I contend it is the consumer.


This is the last time I am going to explain something that I already explained in previous posts (you could try reading them).  If you truly believe in the free market you would understand that people have a choice as to what goods and services they choose to buy.  If the price goes up to reflect the taxes, the consumer has the choice of purchasing or not. 

If your tax rate is higher because are not paying their fair share, you have no choice but to pay it.


And this is the last time I am going to explain that the issue is not what motivates the consumer to buy. It is not a matter whether or not consumers have a choice. It is much simpler than that - taxes paid are a cost of doing business and are reflected in the price - hence, the consumer pays the taxes (albeit indirectly).

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
309
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
302
Views

Re: Profitable US Companies - No Taxes Paid?

302 Views
Message 45 of 110

@rker321 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:


So then I'm pretty sure you know that is not what I am saying. And I'm pretty sure you know that I am saying that it is the consumer who actually pays that money.


Shouln't ethics be part of a corporation responsibility to its consumers?

and not just their shareholders? or they should only be responsible to their shareholders.


I like the thought but to depend on it is impractical. Let's say company A is competing with company B. One is "ethical" (still to be defined), the other isn't. Is the consumer going to be ethical and pay more to the ethical one, or is that one going out of business?

 

In reality, a corporation is responsible to it's shareholders - they allowed the corporation to be created in the first place. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
302
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
300
Views

Re: Profitable US Companies - No Taxes Paid?

300 Views
Message 46 of 110

@rk9152  You are not wrong....however...the taxes passed on may not reflect the actual costs a jurisdictions tax base pays for producing a product. You with me there?  IF that's the case, that 'excess' cost will be paid by someone else in the tax chain. It doesn't get passed on. That's a subsidy of sorts, even if it is not called that. 

 

Your point appears self-evident and expandable.  It isn't.  Accepting it literally would lead to a false conclusion that all taxes are reflected in the price of the product.  They are not.   Again...you are not wrong.  

 

Regarding complexity...complexity facilitates manipulation.  It should not be so, but it is. Laws and credits and exemptions et al are complex for purpose...none of it good.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
300
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
302
Views

Re: Profitable US Companies - No Taxes Paid?

302 Views
Message 47 of 110

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

rk9152 wrote "How does a corporation "pay it's fair share" when they are merely passing the cost to the consumer and, in effect, just acting as a tax collection agency for the government?  It comes down to the user of the end service paying the full cost for it and not expecting others to supplement the cost of what they are consuming.

Exactly, they pay the full cost including all that goes into bringing that product to market - including the taxes.

 

The citizens ARE paying those taxes but being fooled with all this foolishness by the pols claiming they are going to make the corporations pay.  They are not being fooled by having to pay a price that fully reflects all of the costs.  They always have a choice of what and how much to buy.  You do not have a choice with the taxes you are paying.

Exactly - once you have shopped around and decided where to buy the product, the price you pay includes the taxes they will end up paying. 

 

I notice you didn't bother to comment on my question about personal choice.

Of course I did - "How does a corporation "pay it's fair share" when they are merely passing the cost to the consumer and, in effect, just acting as a tax collection agency for the government?".


Because not everybody consumes their goods and services equally.



How the heck does that relate to the actual source of the revenue used to pay the taxes? I contend it is the consumer.


This is the last time I am going to explain something that I already explained in previous posts (you could try reading them).  If you truly believe in the free market you would understand that people have a choice as to what goods and services they choose to buy.  If the price goes up to reflect the taxes, the consumer has the choice of purchasing or not. 

If your tax rate is higher because are not paying their fair share, you have no choice but to pay it.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
302
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
295
Views

Re: Profitable US Companies - No Taxes Paid?

295 Views
Message 48 of 110

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:


So then I'm pretty sure you know that is not what I am saying. And I'm pretty sure you know that I am saying that it is the consumer who actually pays that money.


Shouln't ethics be part of a corporation responsibility to its consumers?

and not just their shareholders? or they should only be responsible to their shareholders.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
295
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
297
Views

Re: Profitable US Companies - No Taxes Paid?

297 Views
Message 49 of 110

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

rk9152 wrote "How does a corporation "pay it's fair share" when they are merely passing the cost to the consumer and, in effect, just acting as a tax collection agency for the government?  It comes down to the user of the end service paying the full cost for it and not expecting others to supplement the cost of what they are consuming.

Exactly, they pay the full cost including all that goes into bringing that product to market - including the taxes.

 

The citizens ARE paying those taxes but being fooled with all this foolishness by the pols claiming they are going to make the corporations pay.  They are not being fooled by having to pay a price that fully reflects all of the costs.  They always have a choice of what and how much to buy.  You do not have a choice with the taxes you are paying.

Exactly - once you have shopped around and decided where to buy the product, the price you pay includes the taxes they will end up paying. 

 

I notice you didn't bother to comment on my question about personal choice.

Of course I did - "How does a corporation "pay it's fair share" when they are merely passing the cost to the consumer and, in effect, just acting as a tax collection agency for the government?".


Because not everybody consumes their goods and services equally.



How the heck does that relate to the actual source of the revenue used to pay the taxes? I contend it is the consumer.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
297
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
294
Views

Re: Profitable US Companies - No Taxes Paid?

294 Views
Message 50 of 110

@umbarch64 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@umbarch64 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

Skip the class warfare and stick to the basics. Taxes are a cost of doing business therefore included in the price charged. Hence, the consumer pays them.


True, but only partly. When the business doesn't pay costs incurred at the location of that business, those costs are absorbed somewhere else by some one else.  There's more to it than that, but for simplicity, let's leave it at that. 

Again, someone else already is - the consumer.

 

Yes...that is so, but the consumer can be anywhere in the world and their contribution to the 'chain' doesn't go to defray the cost imposed elsewhere.  You have an extremely valid point...it is not yet completed.

 

The 'business' draws needed service[s].  Those services may be needed everywhere its product is financed, manufactured, marketed sold or used.  Cost to the public is almost never fully recovered by the public at any of those places.  'You guys' can chase the rabbit down this hole forever and never catch him. 

You may be right. But it happens so much that there has to be some logic behind it. 

 

Of course there is.  It is quite rational too.  IF you can get someone else to pick up the tab it doesn't come out of yours.  Now...IF you can charge the same amount as you usually do for your product and don't HAVE to reduce the price paid by the consumer, why would you?  Just puts MORE money in your pocket, somebody else gets stuck with the tab and that's good business.  "the donald" would call that 'making a good deal'.  You've got a point...it isn't completed.

 

Example:....an analysis, done so long ago I no longer have it in my files, showed NO skyscraper pays or has ever paid the full cost of the services it requires from the jurisdiction where it is located, back to the jurisdiction where it is located.  That means the taxpayer subsidizes that thing, whether or not the taxpayer know it.   Most don't.   It never shows up on the books that way.  This is something you have to think about yourself, probably for quite awhile, so you can argue with yourself along the way and not with me. I've been there, done that.  It's your turn.

Again, you may be right. I have no idea why they do that. The one that really gets me is sports venues. Those teams are making big bucks, why does the city have to underwrite the new stadium?

 

Well...as to why "they" do that, the answer is because "they" can.   Jusrisdiction, as I used the term, doesn't stop at "city".  The impacts extend as far as support costs do...even into the next county or next state or even 500 miles downsteam as the case might be.  Any support required by any occupant for any reason introduces an added cost to the equation. It is  possible somebody in Texas pays part of the tab for Trump Tower. 

 

Sports venues get by with it because they 'provide' what the People 'want' and will 'pay money for'.  The City underwrites because the citizens are convinced they 'want' it.  Usually the 'sell' includes a representation that it will benefit the community through increased business revenue and reduced taxes of some sort.  The 'promise' says it won't cost what it ends up costing ...by  the time that becomes apparent, it is too late to kill it. ..too much invested and too much to lose. The venue hedges its bet and the Citizen takes the risk.  Part of the promise is increased revenue for business and perhaps reduced taxes for citizens in the jurisdiction, which almost never happens.  I think you may have noticed that.

When the "owners' have milked it for as much as is possible, they sell, but the proceeds are not shared with the jurisdiction that funded the venture.  Good business, donchasee?  

By the way...I think this kind of dialogue does serve to inform and educate...thank you.

 

All this could be analyzed correctly using our current technology.  That's not where the problem is at all.  The problem 'lies' elsewhere...  I'll leave it at that.


 


This is becoming extremely and unnecessarily complex. Let's try this - I believe that any taxes that a company pays comes out of the revenues it generates via it's goods or services. Therefore, the expense of those taxes is considered into the cost development. Hence, the consumer actually pays the taxes. Am I wrong??

 

No 140 character limit but could you please keep your response aimed directly at that thought. 


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
294
Views