Does anyone here not understand....

I'm sure if you think about that you will understand it. Businesses will always pass along the increase in cost of production to the end consumer but if a business saves money they're not necessarily going to pass that along as well.

Businesses exist to make a profit.

 

You seem to be mixing up the wealthy, who do not as a class, supply goods and services, with businesses. So your argument does not apply to, for example, a "wealth tax." As for the change in corporate taxes, there has only been established a 15% minimum tax. That you think this will make goods more expensive, shows a fundament misunderstanding of market economies. If businesses could get people to use their products at a 15% higher price, that is what they already would be charging. The principle, in Capitalism, is "whatever the market will bear." Likewise, if there is greatly decreased demand for some product or service, after an additional 15% mark up, the companies will just have to eat that tax cost, in their bottom lines (and look for offsets, elsewhere). They are not selling their products at a lower cost because they get away without paying taxes.

 

an economy, esp a capitalist economy, not exist to guarantee corporate profits.

the problem with your analysis is that we are not required to pay the increased costs, and only the customers pay the increased overhead. this represents an opportunity for competitors who can increase efficiency or subsist on lower profit margins to thrive.

 

He works at a gas station. THAT’S his “business” experience

 

Its an ancient talking point, but I think you confuse "wealthy people" with corporations, and vast majority of corporations (or any significant size) are owned by shareholders.

They are corporations, not charities. When they get windfall profits, they spend it on share-by-backs, which is exactly what happened after in 2017 handouts.

The conservative argument for universal healthcare is that it would remove the burden/cost of employee health insurance off the backs of the employer, and that cost would be passed down to employees and/or consumer, and the counter argument has always been that it never happens.

 

I DO understand that the RW propaganda, to frame a complex, macroeconomic problem, i.e. which tax rates are optimal, to a simplistic RW talking point that "everyone can understand", works very well.

But, you still haven't answered the question I asked. To reframe it, to address your last post: If a business isn't necessarily passing tax savings on to consumers, why do they necessarily pass on tax increases to consumers?

 

Zero sum economics, the idea that one is poor because another is rich, is one of the biggest items of propaganda the Democrats have ever successfully pushed.

 

When and if a particular market has competition, there won't be a drastic price difference for the exact same goods. Marginal differences in prices may exist. And it's not just the literal 'market', location is a factor - I doubt you are going to find the same number of Dollar stores in Greenwich CT as you would in Knoxville TN.

No one is 'required' to pay any price, that was a rather vague statement. A basis also exists that if a business is asking, and getting a higher price, competitors will also increase their prices, but still remain a hair under top price.

I could get into all sorts of pricing strategies, but the basic is, if overhead costs increase, product prices will increase. That is one of those facts in the business world.

 

So when people like you state that tax cuts will lead to lower prices you are lying and you know it.

 

Good point.

Government is incapable of forcing corporations and business from lowering profits through tax policy.

Why does the left keep trying?

 

You mean zero sum economics like: We are poor because illegal immigrants steal our jobs? If the world were a basket of infinite riches, illegal immigration sure would not be a problem?

The truth is, however, that there can be no infinity in a finite system (the earth), that's where modern day economics, built on the principle of eternal exponential growth, fails. Somehow, conservatives can grasp this concept when it comes to illegals or competition with China, but they fail to see it when it comes to our own rich and poor countrymen.

 

Labor cost and pricing is determined by the markets not government policy. Especially not tax policy.

 

No wrong. Much like global trade, bringing in outside influences that participate outside of the rules of the market absolutley impact the market values.

That has nothing to do with zero sum theory.

They wouldn't be a problem because they wouldn't be here participating outside the market rules.

In our market, in our economy, yes absolutley we have a basket of infinite riches.

Not every commodity is natural resource based.

People get paid a lot of money for what they know, what they say, etc.

I won't even go down the road of renewable resources that much of our economy and wealth is based on.

Why do you need to bring outside influences into a closed market condition to try to make your theory viable?

 

The election results tend to say otherwise.

 

Here's some food for thought. Businesses don't operate in a competitive vacuum. Raising prices is conditional on your competition doing likewise or you price yourself out of biz. Prices are typically raised because of either labor cost increases or increases for the cost of raw materials. Those trends affect all businesses of a particular type.
Not to mention that businesses of size file corporate tax returns which may or may not be reflective of the personal tax returns owners and executives file. Raising personal taxes on the top wage earners most often has no effect on biz decisions. Those decisions are made according to the health of the biz, not how much the owners are paying in taxes.

 

I'm no fan of taxes, but the truth is we need to pay for our spending. If we're going to enact new spending, we need to pay for it. The plus side of that is that a lot of new spending would be very unpopular if people got the tax bill on that immediately. Ever wonder why deep blue states don't enact their own universal coverage plans even though they support them in overwhelming numbers? They don't want to pay for it. Do you think Biden's "climate change" bill would have passed if that resulted in an instant increase in personal and corporate taxes? Unlikely.

 

Amen, Gen Z's gonna bury them in 2024 unless they start forward looking.

Interesting.

Amen! The beauty of a corporation and the short comings of a TOTAL focus on executive and shareholder greed.
BUT, the real solution is to cut down on corporate lobbing and dark money into Congress.

 

In principle, I'm in favor of the "pay as you go" approach to government spending programs. But in the case of spending for the prevention of climate change I'd be fine with it being taken out of the bloated defense budget. We can't afford not to invest in reducing our dependence on carbon based fuels.

 

On a side note, a tax on politicans who enjoy windfall profits while serving us helps everybody (except for politicians, of course).

 

The bill isn't going to do anything about climate change, it was just titled that for the rubes.

 

The one who would be full of crap would be you, claiming that I ever said such a thing.

If you're going to try straw man at least not to be so lame and obvious about it.

 

It was called the Inflation reduction act. They just refer to it as climate change legislation.

 

Some of the other posters have already touched on this point, but when discussing this topic, it is important that we are clear about what we’re talking about.

Are we talking about taxes on personal income, or are we talking about taxes we levy on the business itself?

So here’s where I stand on this ….

Businesses, in essence, are groups of people working together to provide a product or service they can sell to others, thereby creating income for themselves. The business is the engine that creates income and wealth.

So I think it is important that we not encumber those American businesses with taxation on the profits they generate. Honestly, if it was up to me, I wouldn’t tax business profits at all.

Personal income is another thing all together. Increased taxation on high personal incomes has no negative effect on the health of the business, nor does it result in price increases on the products and services the business produces. Taxes on personal income cannot be simply passed on to the consumer because of competition and because people will only pay up to so much for anything.

So …

I am generally opposed to taxing business profits, with the caveat that those products and services are produced in America.

But I am not opposed to raising taxes on very high personal income, especially given that we need to balance the federal budget.

Let’s use our common sense on a hypothetical situation. Let’s say you’re the owner of a successful company, and your yearly after-tax personal income is $15 million. Then the government raises taxes on your personal income, reducing your yearly after-tax income to only $10 million.

What possible difference does that make to you?

Your elite standard of living isn’t going to be effected one bit. And you are not going to give your competitors an edge or risk decreased sales by increasing prices.

The increase on the taxes of your personal income had no effect on the health of your successful business, nor did it reduce your standard of living.

What it did do is help your country by helping to balance the federal budget.

When I think of the sacrifices that were made to build and preserve this great country of ours by ordinary Americans who came before us … need I even say it?

Seth

 

Yes. All instances where there is competition.

 

You only have the fallacious idea that the reason Democrats feel that multibillion dollar corporations should pay their fair share of taxes, is an attempt to get them to lower their profits. What nonsense.