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

I am fully informed as I was in industrial sales over 40 years and witnessed the private and public training partnerships in the states I covered and major manufacturers I called. You are the misinformed party here.

 

Its just for drugs, its like 142mo

 

Do you have a 401(k)?

 

All that happens AFTER a healthy chunk of profits get pulled out.

However when the government spends on infrastructure... that also creates jobs and expands the tax base. Directly

 

When government spends it also increases debt or taxes or both.

 

Wrong, it is an expense, profits are left AFTER expenses and have nothing to do with what I said anyway. You can get a two year associates degree in robotics in my state at no charge for low income students paid for by the state government and private manufacturing primarily the auto industry in my state. We have an advanced maritime welding school right here, again a private public partnership. Drive by the Hyundai plant or Mercedes plant, or KIA or Toyota and the nice university building out front is their training center.

How did that infrastructure, shovel ready stimulus Obama got congress to pass workout? Why don't we just shutdown all the factories and businesses and put everyone on road crews if infrastructure is the way to a successful economy? Infrastructure is a necessary expense, it does not produce or add value to a product or service which is where economies grow and jobs are created at a level to reach full employment as we have before the COVID pandemic.

 

So now you’re a debt scold? I don’t recall you saying squat when Trump and the GOP Congress were driving the debt train into a canyon BEFORE the pandemic

 

Let’s be clear here. Corporations have been recording record profits year over year for decades.

The claim that corporations can simply pass the cost of a tax increase is nonsense. That assumes that they can arbitrarily raise prices whenever they choose to. False. They are already charging what the market will bear. They charge as much as they can. That’s how it works

A tax increase cuts into their (as noted) record PROFITS

 

Did not happen. They got all they could with Obamacare. If they could have negotiated between the house and the Senate they would have but they were down to 59 votes again so they had to pass the Senate version and the GOP of course has obstructed and sabotaged it ever since including the reform it needs. I have a small to medium hospital here and I've been in it and I never heard anything about these ******n networks period but *******n networks were the way it was going before Obamacare period it will be tinkered with forever hopefully it needs a lot that's for sure. But I am very pleased

 

It's all in Covered California.

Let's compare that number with 2010.....

The numbers are virtually the same. Time to follow the will of the people and do in Obama Care and start over. The VA is already in place, perhaps they can be expanded to cover as a public option.

Narrow networks leave some Obamacare consumers lacking options

Obamacare doctor networks to stay limited in 2015

Keeping Your Doctor Under Obamacare Is No Easy Feat

For your continuing education.

 

Then the US government should not expend any resources (you know - taxes) defending their copyrights, patents and trademarks outside of US borders.

 

I wasn't aware they did. At any rate, some countries (China being probably the worst offender) simply do not respect IP rights. That's why Microsoft sells licenses there for $5 that they charge $100+ for here. Because $5 is better than nothing, and nothing is what they would get if they charged a fair market price because they'll just pirate their software otherwise. They will pay a nominal fee to "get legit", so to speak.

But I'm not seeing how this is related to the idea that corporations paying taxes is just a cleverly (and intentionally) constructed illusion.

 

You misspelled, "privileges." We only have rights to the things we would have if others did not deprive us of them: mainly life, liberty, and property in the fruits of our labor. If I make a copy of something someone else created, that copy is the fruit of my labor, not theirs.

The fair market price of information is close to zero.

The real pirates are the IP monopolists.

The OP's (false) notion was that corporations cannot be made to pay taxes. There is a related false notion that they shouldn't be, or that they are already paying too much.

 

totally agree with you, but won't happen now though, the SC has swung far right, and the right is very pro corp

I think now we will see less workers rights and more corporate rights

 

Both of your poles are before Obamacare even started for crying out loud, just the result of a tidal wave of GOP crap propaganda. A disgrace. Today it has 56% approval at least and it keeps going up especially when you idiots try to repeal it.

 

Unless the Democrats get elected and have 60 votes in the senate for Christ's sake period or go nuclear. This is ridiculous

 

See, that's your first mistake. I called them "rights" for a reason. It's why you, and you alone, own the IP of a photograph you took (unless you were hired to do so, in which case your employer does) even before your camera finishes writing the data to your storage. No need to register it with the copyright office, no need to send a copy of it to DC, no requirements whatsoever, except that it is an original not-for-hire work that you created. That also applies to anything you can think of... A video (as long as you're not filming already copyrighted material), a painting, a song, whether you wrote it, recorded it, or both, a computer program, a full-length feature film, pretty much anything you can think of. You don't even have to have done it on purpose, if you are the only person who happened to capture some interesting or newsworthy event out of blind chance on video, you still own it and it's yours to sell for as much as you can find a buyer willing to pay you for it, in whole or in part. You can even barter ownership of the IP away if you like, purely at YOUR option.

You see, in most of the civilized world, there are Courts specifically setup to hear and rule on cases of copyright (or patent, or whatever) infringements. And those Courts are not even funded by taxpayers, as the parties involved are responsible for paying Court costs, but any just Court will force the loser to pay both parties' fees. This is done, at least in part, to deter frivolous lawsuits (as many have correctly observed, anyone can sue anyone else for any reason at any time, right or wrong), as well as to discourage wealthy entities from abusing their positions of being able to just grind down their actually aggrieved opponents due to their opponents inability to keep up with their deep pockets during any given proceeding. Usually they're just civil matters, but more egregious cases may rise to the level of criminal in nature. Just ask the former owners of "The Pirate Bay" website, which is now defunct, though copycats continue springing up.

Other not so civilized places (ahem, China) do not honor those rights, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, only that the governments in power do not give a sh*t about them. Even here in the US some rights, including some specifically enumerated in our founding documents, are nonetheless ignored. Probably the most notable is gun rights, but it's not the only one, and it IS off topic.

Simply not true. In fact let me quote my local property appraiser on that very point. (And he is talking about "Real Property", which is just that. About the most "real" property any of us will ever own. Absent actual warfare, it's almost literally impossible to steal, and is insured against past innocent mistakes by private companies who voluntary take on that risk in exchange for a fee, and one in which payouts are virtually unheard of in the first place.*)

To wit: "Qualified sales (for appraisal purposes) best represent market pressures, as they are transactions which are arrived at by unrelated educated buyers and sellers with no undue pressures on either party."

Which is a fancy way of saying it's the supply/demand curve as it impacts an otherwise uninterfered with market that determines what the real fair market price is, not YOUR sense of entitlement to the fruits of someone else's labor for nothing because your parents spoiled you when you were little.

I see. Interesting position, are you employed by the chicoms to spread their misinformation, or merely sympathetic with their misguided views on such things and doing it for free?

Well, I am the OP, and I stand by my "theory" completely. Corporations don't pay for ANYTHING. Not the CEO's "unfair" salary, not the corporate jet(s), assuming there are any, not shareholder dividends, not COGS, not even for their corporate headquarters, or the desks, decorations, and staples stored and used within. And most certainly not "their" taxes. We, the end-user consumers, pay for ALL of that through a concept generally referred to as "profitability". And while you might be tempted to argue that an unprofitable corporation is in fact paying their own taxes, it's really the owners who are doing so, and an unprofitable company will not stay in business at all if unprofitability becomes too much of a long term thing for those owners to stomach. Or afford.

What's it going to do to the industries you seem to have no moral or ethical compunctions against stealing from (like movie studios, video game makers, etc.) when they no longer exist to make a product for you to steal? More to the point, what's it going to do to YOU if they no longer exist to feed your self-entitled rear end with "free" stuff? Just how many terabytes of stolen IP do you own, anyway? And did you pay for the physical storage it's on, or is just taking physical goods too much like "real" stealing?

 

Unlike Biden who is pro worker? That is hilarious! Biden is pro China.

 

My wife works in finance at a major regional hospital here where we live. To quote her, "Obamacare is the worst health insurance humans have ever invented."

The few people I know personally who have had it universally hated it. The coverages sucked, the costs sucked, and if you didn't get it, you were forced to pay a tax, er I mean a fine, for failing to do so. In which case you were still out the cash but got literally NOTHING for it in return. I am of the belief that it was designed that way intentionally, to be SO horrible that people would just bend over and live with "Single Payer", which was BO's (and his cronies on the left in general, most especially Joe Biden) real goal in the first place, but which they couldn't sell to the American people. But since they're much better stewards of our money than we are (in their minds, anyway), they devised a scheme to try to foist it on us against our will. And given half a chance, it won't be the last time they try that.

 

I forgot to add the reason for my asterisk in my post above, and didn't get to the edit button fast enough. So here it is...

* It's mostly off topic, but on the issue of real property ownership, title insurance is a scam perpetuated by the Title Insurance providers, and enabled by government. A few simple tweaks to existing laws would render it completely unnecessary.

Also, we only "own" property in what's called "fee simple". Fee simple is legalese for "You only own it for as long as you pay your annual rent to the State, commonly referred to as "Property Taxes". What we really need is allodial title, which means nobody, not even government, can take away your real property for any reasons (except perhaps as criminal punishments or fines), most especially meaning that property taxes simply do not exist. You own it completely free and clear until you sell it, give it away, or die, in which case ownership transfers to your heirs or assigns as may be the case.

That's at least better than the chicoms, who don't even have fee simple. Rather what they call "private property ownership" is really just a long term lease. It may outlive the original lease purchasers, but it will only leave something of marginal utility or value to their heirs who will only have a short term "right to use" of the property left. In simple terms, their kids don't get squat, but instead it goes back to (is stolen by) the government. That's coming home to roost, however, because some of those original leases are starting to get dangerously close to their term expiration, and they're responding by collectively putting their heads in the sand and ignoring the problem completely, hoping it will just go away. But it won't. If they change the laws in favor of more true ownership, they lose face by going against their commie "principals". If they don't, they destroy whatever semblance of a real estate "market" they already have. Nobody of sound mind is going to pay market value for a property they're only getting a 5 year license to use.

And yes, this is largely off topic, but it's the Internet, and thread creep happens.

 

It's not a mistake. I am correct.

Right: you want readers to believe, erroneously, that privileges are rights.

No, that is not a right, it is a government-issued and -enforced privilege.

No it doesn't, thank heaven. No one can own scientific or historical knowledge except by keeping it secret. No one can own fashion designs -- which, btw, prove that all your disingenuous pro-IP monopoly garbage is disingenuous garbage.

You are describing legal privilege that has accreted mainly in the last few decades, not a right.

Because unlike rights, privileges only exist by law. See how that works?

So such courts will not only forcibly remove people's rights to liberty but force them to pay for the fetters.

But the IP system in fact encourages them. Google "patent troll" and start reading.

But in fact the IP system enables wealthy entities to destroy competitors through precisely such legal proceedings, and thus extract monopoly rents.

Another disgraceful accretion of privilege in the last few decades.

Those people were and are heroes of the human right to liberty -- in stark contrast to, e.g., you.

China was civilized when Europe and America were still illiterate.

They are privileges, not rights.

Funny how those "rights" never existed, never even entered anyone's head, until GOVERNMENTS CREATED THEM a few hundred years ago....

Sort of like you ignore the fact that IP monopoly privileges are not a right according to the US Constitution, but merely an incentive created by the government "to encourage literature and the useful arts"?

If you want your gun "rights," go live in a "civilized" country -- like, say, Somalia.

It is definitely true, and I will thank you to remember it.

I get it: you are a propertarian, a huge fan of owning other people's rights to liberty whether that government-issued and -enforced ownership takes the form of an IP monopoly, a land title, or any other government-issued and -enforced legal property "right." Some propertarians even go so far as to include chattel slavery among the legal property "rights" of which they approve. So tell me: if owning other people's rights to liberty is rightful in the case of land and IP because government has made it so in law -- i.e., by force -- what was different about government making ownership of others' rights to liberty rightful via government-enforced slave deeds?

"Uninterfered"??? Are you serious? The IP "market" is nothing but government interference.

It is IP monopolists who are legally entitled to take the fruits of someone else's labor, and I will thank you to remember it.

So you know you have no factual, logical, economic or moral arguments, and must therefore resort to contemptible and despicable ad hominem filth. Thought so.

I see: more logic-free filth.

Fact: the most intellectually productive society per capita in history, by far, was ancient Athens. No one who lived there ever owned an IP monopoly.

But it is objectively false, like your disingenuous rationalizations of IP monopoly privilege.

You are again just objectively incorrect, as I and other posters in this thread have already proved. You just decline to reconsider your proved-false beliefs merely on the basis of having seen them proved false.

Customers -- to the extent that a firm even has any -- pay the market price, which is determined by supply and demand, NOT BY COST. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you. A tax is a cost that may or may not be shifted off the nominal taxpayer (in this case the firm), typically depending on the relevant elasticities of supply and demand. As I have advised you before, Google "tax incidence" and start reading. It's time.

I stipulated in my first demolition of your false claims that if a firm's shareholders bear a cost in exact proportion to their shareholdings in the firm, it is correct to call that a cost borne by the firm -- and disingenuous to claim it is not.

Copying is not stealing. Why do you falsely claim that it is? Are you perhaps unaware that excellent books, movies, computer software, etc. have all been produced explicitly for placement directly into the public domain? Are you perhaps unaware of the fact that Shakespeare never held a copyright? Are you perhaps unaware that fashion designers get rich without IP monopolies?

You mean, like the fashion industry no longer exists because there are no patent or copyright monopolies on clothing designs....?

It is IP monopolists who are self-entitled, and I will thank you to remember it.

I don't own any but what I have produced (many thousands of copyrighted works, a few of which have actually made money), and the few gigabytes I have on media -- almost all of which has just accumulated, with no conscious effort on my part to obtain it -- is not stolen.

If I take a physical product from its owner, they no longer have it. If I make a copy of something, the owner still has it. Why are you pretending not to know that fact?

 

So, you want the government to forcibly remove everyone else's liberty rights to use the land and make those liberty rights into your private property, but you don't want to pay anything for that privilege to either the government that provides it or the people who are thus forcibly stripped of their rights for your unearned profit.

Somehow, I kinda figured it's be something like that....

Landed property is stolen in any case. There has never been a private title to land that was based on anything but forcible dispossession of all who would otherwise have been at liberty to use the land, and there never will be.

I agree their approach has been neither principled, realistic, nor constructive.

You mean the commie "principals" that have stood Hong Kong in such good stead for over 160 years? Those commie "principals"?

Nonsense. They can just charge the market rent.

They will, by definition.

 

Apparently you've never done an RFQ or RFP for a major business? When you provide pricing for a bid of work, you build in any brick and mortar cost (including estimated utility expenditures), FTE effort (total FTE cost including benefits), any equipment that needs to be purchased, maintenance cost to maintain your operation and all tax liability cost. This is all rolled into your price of doing business.

So no, corporations pay no taxes as taxes are merely a pass through cost to the consumer.

 

The real problem is that we have a health system that costs twice as much per capita as anywhere else and doesn't cover so many people. Fix it it's not hard Joe will do it. It is totally obstructed and sabotaged as much as possible . There is no mandate which is the way Obama actually wanted it. But we have to go after costs with competition and total transparency to go after big health and big pharma period which Republicans will never do. You are totally misinformed. Of course this is the Senate version of Obamacare which is all Democrats could pass. It is the best thing that ever happened for people who get Medicaid and people who pay less than $100 a month with subsidies. After that go after costs....

 

The corporate share of Federal Tax Revenue has fallen from roughly a third of the total revenue to roughly 10% of total revenue over nearly a half century.

That is precisely what some people are referencing. Maybe I missed something but I don’t recall my tax burden falling by two-thirds over the same period.