3
   

Question for Democrats

 
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 05:10 pm
@hightor,
And , within the last two weeks, the TRUMP regime is suing the Commonwelth of Pa to disallow the use of drop stations to return mail in ballots in the 2020 election.

On one hand the regime is purposely slowing the response of theUSPS in order to interefere with receiving mail-in ballots on time. Then, on the other hand it is suing the state so as NOT to make it possible to meet the deadline by using state adopted drop points.
5 other states have been using drop points for several years without incient.

This guy isnt gonna go quietly, and hes leaving a disagreeable trail of mendacity .


0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 06:03 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

I have no desire to limit a person's wealth. I do, however, believe that ,for me, there is a limit to how much I would need. How much someone else decides is enough for them is up to them.

I also don't think giving money away fixes anything.


This is a thread about corporate tax rates. I am making an argument that they may be a good thing because they may alleviate a little income disparity. I argue that this is a good thing, especially since we need to collect taxes anyway.

I don't know where your point about "limiting someone's income" came from. I certainly am not proposing this.

I think there is an argument for giving people money in certain circumstances. But again, I don't see what that has to do with the points I made about corporate taxes.
shug23
 
  0  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 06:49 pm
I don't see the thread that suggests income disparity is reduced by having corporate taxes; Can you post (repost ) it ? If I am a company and my tax rates go up by X%, seems like I am going to raise my product by some percent to cover the additional tax burden because I need to make a certain amount of profit to support my lifestyle or to satisfy the shareholders. Increasing the corporate tax rate doesn't sound progressive, seems regressive and closer to being a flat tax across all buyers of the product. Thank you
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 09:05 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

I have no desire to limit a person's wealth. I do, however, believe that ,for me, there is a limit to how much I would need. How much someone else decides is enough for them is up to them.

I also don't think giving money away fixes anything.


This is a thread about corporate tax rates. I am making an argument that they may be a good thing because they may alleviate a little income disparity. I argue that this is a good thing, especially since we need to collect taxes anyway.

I don't know where your point about "limiting someone's income" came from. I certainly am not proposing this.

I think there is an argument for giving people money in certain circumstances. But again, I don't see what that has to do with the points I made about corporate taxes.



maxdancona wrote:
Do you support the principle that limiting wealth disparity (the difference between the very rich and the very poor) is a good goal? I believe that sound economic policy will have this effect; it's not only the right thing to do, it leads to productivity and stability.

Of course the devil is in the details.... but I want to ask if you at least agree on the underlying principle.


Is that not what you asked me? About an underlying principle?

"Do you support the principle that limiting wealth disparity" This is where my point about "limiting someone's income" came from. How do you limit wealth disparity without "limiting" it on one end or the other? Certainly can't limit it on the poor can we?

Are you having a different discussion with me than I am having with you?
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 10:48 pm
Four years ago, businesses in Kansas went from paying over 6 percent taxes to paying
nothing at all, as part of a Republican experiment to boost the limp state economy. But when
the massive drop in tax revenue destabilized the economy lawmakers started slashing the
budget and social programs and underfunding schools. Economics correspondent Paul
Solman reports on what happened next.


Published: December 7, 2017


0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 11:18 pm
Trickle Down Economics False, Middle Out is the Best Policy

Published: February 10, 2013


0 Replies
 
shug23
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2020 08:27 am
Who is John Galt ?
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2020 10:01 am
@shug23,
Galt is a character in Atlas Shrugged
0 Replies
 
shug23
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2020 10:43 am
a must read !!!
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2020 01:24 pm
@shug23,
shug23 wrote:
Why do you want corporations to pay higher tax rates? The corporation is not a person; it will simply pass any tax increase on to the employees in terms of lower wages or to the consumer in terms of higher prices. I can tell you that's what insurance companies do whenever the states or cities introduce premium taxes.; it is a pass-thru. I have seriously never understood the Democratic position on corporate tax rates and look forward to an intelligent reply. I'm not looking to debate, just understand where you are coming from and why.

While I'm a Democrat, I am highly atypical. I'm probably not one of the ones who you are hoping to hear from. That said, here's my answer:

I don't want to raise tax rates on corporations. I don't even know what the current rate even is, but I'm satisfied with it.

However, I can tell you why I favor having a corporate tax of some sort.

It helps on the federal level because being required to pay their taxes in dollars encourages corporations to conduct their transactions using dollars. Having everyone conduct transactions using dollars gives value to the dollar.

It helps on the state level because it provides revenue to states. Personal income tax will not access this pool of money if the owners of a corporation live out of state.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2020 01:25 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
I believe that taxing income is ridiculous. I want a progressive tax system (people with more wealth should pay a greater percentage in taxes)... But basing this on income has a bad effect.
It disincentivizes work. That doesn't make sense to me under any political system.

What do you want to base taxes on instead? Consumption? Overall net worth?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2020 01:26 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
2. Shug suggests that these taxes are passed down to employees and customers. This is irrelevant since the alternative is to tax employees and customers directly.
3. Taxing corporations may have the effect of reducing wealth disparity. Most people make around $50,000. Some make $200,000. But the fact that corporate salaries can top millions seems undesirable to many people including economists. One sign of a healthy efficient economy is a lower gap between the very rich, and the poor.

Passing corporate taxes down to employees and consumers will have the opposite effect of your desired goal of reducing income disparity.
0 Replies
 
shug23
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2020 02:04 pm
@oralloy,
I can remember some city, I think it was in Kentucky but it really doesn't matter - they levied a 15% city premium tax on the insurance company, which meant we had to add up the premium we collected from residents/employers of that city , and pay a 15% charge on that amount......So what did we do ? We increased premiums in that city to cover that cost....employers howled, dropped their insurance, raised their deductibles and pretty soon the city reversed it's course......
All the charges that the ACA introduced in terms of taxes, we just passed along to the employers (we modified our bills to show them the extra costs they were incurring).
Do you remember years ago when 'they' tried to put on a luxury tax on yacht builders to soak the rich because they could afford it ? If you don't remember, the employees whose job it was to build yachts all lost their jobs because 'the rich' had alternatives...
I don't know if this is true or not, but I think I heard some politicians complain that Amazon didn't pay any Federal Income Tax. I think that is absolutely fantastic; I love my free shipping. I don't want them paying taxes!
I am not an economist, but I think corporate taxes (which are generally just pass-thrus to consumers or employees) are regressive at the end of the day and probably go against the wishes of people who are looking to reduce income inequality.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2020 02:24 pm
@shug23,
shug23 wrote:
Do you remember years ago when 'they' tried to put on a luxury tax on yacht builders to soak the rich because they could afford it ? If you don't remember, the employees whose job it was to build yachts all lost their jobs because 'the rich' had alternatives...

I do remember it.


shug23 wrote:
I am not an economist, but I think corporate taxes (which are generally just pass-thrus to consumers or employees) are regressive at the end of the day and probably go against the wishes of people who are looking to reduce income inequality.

I concur.

Like I said, although I am a Democrat, I am atypical, and likely not one of the ones you were trying to reach with your question.

Your effort to reach those people with facts and logic is futile. They do not think using logic. They do not care about facts. They operate purely on emotion.
0 Replies
 
shug23
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2020 02:29 pm
yeah...pisses me off when the politicians yell angerly that the corporations need to pay their fair share and we need to raise their rate from 21% (or whatever) to 35% and the crowd screams and has orgasms......being played like a fiddle
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2020 03:16 pm
@shug23,
This is an extreme example of cherry picking you are taking single stories (I am not even sure if they are accurate) to support your political ideology rather than looking at the overall facts.

I don't know what your over all goals are. But objective facts about how corporate taxes impact the economy can be measured. Of course the problem with facts is that they often contradict you political ideology.

If it were shown as a general trend that corporate taxes reduce the disparity of wealth and are in general good for the middle class... would you support them?

I have no problem going with the facts, and if the facts don't support my current belief, I will change my belief.

My opinion is that reducing the disparity of wealth is a good thing. Hopefully you can understand that reducing is not eliminating....
0 Replies
 
shug23
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2020 03:55 pm
you may be the only person so far that has attempted to give a real answer to my question of why do democrats want an increase in corporate tax rates...I have a strong belief that corporations pass their taxes into reducing employee wages and/or increasing product prices which I believe is a form of progressive taxation.
So I am looking for the other side of the coin. I haven't intentionally cherry picked examples . The two real-life examples from the insurance companies is what the industry does . The yacht story is 100% true and I don't know about Amazon paying zero taxes, but I hope it is true.
It's logical though, isn't it ?..If you are running a business and you suddenly get hit with an extra expense - whether it is a supplier raising his price to you, or your rent goes up, or the government wants another bite of your apple - what are you going to do ? You are going to raise your prices or reduce the raise you were going to give your employees or reduce the amount of dividends you were planning to pay, or something to keep your profit where you want it to be - EVEN if your profit target is 0%. ( I suppose you might reduce executive pay, but talent doesn't come cheap and are not captive)

I would be interested in seeing a study that suggests corporate taxes reduce income inequality , but you know as well as I do , one can almost 'prove' anything...But yes, I think I asked you earlier to point me to the link that supported your assertion..

Maybe I should be concerned about income inequality, but it's not really something I have thought much upon- if a baseball player can make 60 million - more power to him
I have no agenda and wasn't looking to debate; I truly want to see the other side so I can understand because it makes no sense to me that increasing (or even having) corporate taxes is a good thing
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2020 04:04 pm
@shug23,
You "belief" is contradicted by facts.

This is a factual question that can be studied by economist and answered with data. The fact is that corporate taxes reduce income inequality. You can Google this in any number of places, expert economists are in general agreement on this point.

Anyone can have "beliefs" and "logic". Facts are facts, and when the facts contradict your beliefs and logic, your beliefs are wrong.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2020 04:11 pm
@maxdancona,
For example https://www.nber.org/papers/w24598
0 Replies
 
shug23
 
  2  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2020 04:15 pm
@maxdancona,
for the 3rd time, please provide a link...

I only assert that corporate taxes are simply passed along. I assert that this is regressive, not progressive......This is my main belief

I honestly don't know whether or not raising corporate taxes has an impact on income disparity; I haven't given it any thought other than I think regressive taxes do not help income inequality.

 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/08/2020 at 12:58:26