I'm tired of the "Corporations need to pay their fair share" BS mantra

I don't do "impressions". I say what I mean to say. No more, no less

 

OK. I accept your comments about accounting practice. But corporate income taxes reduce the profitability of a company and cause prices to rise. That is what I have been trying to get across.

I see the money I earned deducted from the bank account by the IRS. It isn't like sales tax for which I am a collecting agent. For me that is a real expense. My accountant is a competent CPA and he has no problems with the P&L statements I send him.

 

Except the tax on corporate profits, which is levied ON net profits.

No, the tax on profits is paid in the same period in which the profit is earned. That is the point.

?? Revenue is not taxable.

I once edited an accounting textbook.

 

No, they do not, except to the extent that they may indirectly cause reduced productive investment in the future. Unlike your claims, that IS a recognized economic argument.

I explained why they do not, at least as a first-order effect.

He should, if you are deducting profits tax payments for one period as expenses in the next period.

 

Yeah, right. Sorry, the Kool-Aid is all yours.

Total BS not worth a response. Have fun with alternate reality. I'll pass.

 

Tell us how we should invest in America?

 

Yeah, reality sucks when you finally have to acknowledge it. Better to pretend it just ain't there....

 

Companies will simply layoff workers and reduce production as a result. Supply and demand dictates as the production goes down the prices per unit will rise. Don't believe me? Check what Lysol Disinfectant spray is selling for on eBay. What used to be about a $5 dollar can is now selling on eBay for around $100 for 3. The production stayed the same but the demand went way up......so did the prices.

 

It looks like you mean that the capitol they provide has nothing to do with it. Because you said "The poor and the middle class are the ones who produce the wealth." Like there are no other ones who have anything to do with it.

 

They don't reduce profitability. They are paid after the fact - on whatever profit the company has managed to achieve.

So, what they do reduce is the amount left in the company coffers after tax is paid.

If the company is not profitable enough, it needs to boost revenues, reduce expenses, or both, so that the profit is higher.

As usual, the company will have to pay corporate tax on this profit and, as it is higher, the tax will be higher - but the amount left in the coffers will be much higher too.

Your accountant may well understand your 'style' and translate/modify the figures accordingly.

 

It's hilarious that this poster, who has put just about everybody who disagrees with him in his "ignore" list, would say that.

 

Says the guy who ignores the fact that I have refuted him because he put me on ignore the last time I refuted him....

That is irrelevant to the firm's profit maximization.

False. It has made money for its employees, and can continue operating indefinitely as long as it can satisfy its liabilities. You are just OBJECTIVELY WRONG.

That is gibberish with no basis in business reality. It might desire or project an after-tax profit of 5%, but certainly does not need it.

Again, that is just baldly false. You appear to have no idea what you are talking about, and I suspect any "success" you may have enjoyed in business was achieved despite your peculiar ideas about business, not because of them.

No, that has little impact on one's employment decisions.

That's about location and tax-shopping, not the effect of taxes on prices.

But that does not affect pricing, which is determined by supply and demand.

That just means you don't understand profit maximization or why your intended after-tax net is irrelevant to pricing.

<yawn> I have been in business for myself, thanks, and I have worked for many companies, large and small, and for governments and non-profits. Which is how I know you are full of $#!+.

And it is up to the producer to reduce his costs below the market price, not the customer to meet all the producer's expenses or the government to give him a free ride. GET IT??

False. They do it all the time. Just not (usually) intentionally.

False. You are claiming in effect that firms know in advance how much of each product they will be able to sell, and at what price. They try to estimate such quantities, of course, but they often guess wrong.

But that DOES happen. So you are just wrong. Objectively.

 

That -- the effect on supply -- is what determines the extent to which any given tax is passed on to consumers. As a tax on profits does not affect profit maximization, it has no first-order effect on supply.

 

I see. So, where you live on Planet Zondo, if a firm can make $20M by maximizing profits, and pay $10M in profits tax, keeping $10M, it will instead choose to produce less, make only $10M in profits, keeping $5M, so that it need only pay $5M in tax....?

 

Good one! LOL.... Actually it only worked once and that was when Reagan dropped the top rate from 70% to 50%. Then going out the door he dropped it to 28%, and we've been screwed ever since.... The worst inequality and upward mobility ever is not a joke.

 

Beat me to it....

 

I bet I beat several posters. That guy puts anybody who rebuts him in his ignore list. And he spews so much nonsense it's not difficult to rebut him at all.... It's so hypocritical that he, of all posters, would accuse others of pretending reality isn't there.

 

Cheap college and training and infrastructure. We used to have plenty of basically free public universities before Ronald Reagan screwed that up period no sacrifices too great to save the greedy idiot GOP rich from paying their fair share... Only Rupert Murdoch Incorporated garbage propaganda makes you possible....

 

How about fixing our infrastructure?

 

The solution to this problem is tougher monopoly laws and better enforcement. Also we need more competition. Cutting regulations and taxes for smaller businesses will make it easier for them to succeed.

 

You really think any additional cost in manufacturing is NOT passed on to the consumer? Were you out and living on your own during the 1974 oil embargo?

 

When the government raises taxes on a company, please explain in detail how they "maximize profit"? They have to cut cost (ie: labor and material outsourced over seas) or raise prices. Are they in the same tax bracket at $10M in profit as $20M?

 

Cheap college will only result in the market being flooded with college educated labor, thereby driving down wages. At that point, having a college degree will carry the same weight as High School Diploma did in the past. But at what cost? We've heard that infrastructure crapola before, Biden was charged with making it happen in the past. All that happened was Government workers unemployment stayed under 6%. I'm sure they were happy, while the rest of us suffered.

 

The last time the Democrats said they were going to spend on infrastructure the states made sure Government workers unemployment stayed below 6%. and precious few needed infrastructure projects were completed.