This is the kind of genius we are dealing with from the far left.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Max E., Aug 17, 2011.

  1. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao




    I think the overall point he was trying to make is that you cannot look at a corporation and say they're only being taxed at (for example) 15% or 17%, etc. You have to consider that there were $$ paid to employees (taxed at the rate of those employees) and money paid, as you say, to advertisers (who pay tax on those dollars as income, plus the company pays sales tax on that and any purchases for raw materials, etc). If you really want to see how much taxes corporate $$ drives, you have to add it all up and it is quite substantial. You seem ready to dismiss that.


    Yes, and the problem is when that "SOMEONE ELSE" is in India, or China, or Malaysia. Like now. Where they don't have to pay the same tax rate. Or maybe that's what you prefer? All corporate entities to be based somewhere else with their jobs?


    These "corporate types" that spend money (which has been taxed already) on a Benz, Beemer (sic), etc. are also paying TAX on those items after paying tax on their income in the first place. Incidentally, this has nothing to do with CORPORATE taxes at all, it's individual taxes you're now talking about. And let's not mention who actually pays the individual income tax in the first place - the top half of the population. Because the bottom half pays nothing at all.
     
    #11     Aug 18, 2011
  2. Ricter

    Ricter

    Corporations take an input tax credit for tax paid on inputs. We get ours every month, smaller companies can go quarterly, or longer.
     
    #12     Aug 18, 2011
  3. g222

    g222

    Quote from bugscoe:


    That's up to him to explain, not me. And I can think of none that would be acceptable.

    Look ... it's a free country and we can spend our $$$ any way we like. But ... in light of OUR economic problems, it's a slap in the face when our 'job benefactors' take their incentives and tax breaks and spend it on foreign goods. There are those, for example, who buy domestic automobiles to assure that as much of their $$$ as possible stays here to help our economy. Then there's those who could care less.
     
    #13     Aug 18, 2011
  4. Ricter

    Ricter

    On average, the parts and assemblies in those buses crossed the border over a dozen times. "Made in Canada" is a designation given for the last country of significant work, which could be as little as painting.
     
    #14     Aug 18, 2011
  5. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    I would love to see someone stand up and ask Dumbo, while on camera, why he bought buses made in Canada and not the USA.
     
    #15     Aug 18, 2011
  6. g222

    g222

    quote from tsing tao:


    But TT their revenue is NOT double taxed!! The $$ they pay out in wages is DEDUCTED from their revenues BEFORE their tax is computed ... then the employee pays a tax on his earnings. Then each expense they pay out - eahc and every expense, that is - is factored into the selling price of their goods and services that are eventually passed on to the final consumer. What I dismiss is their bleeding heart diatribe that their payment of a higher income tax will have a negative affect on jobs. those are threats and blackmail meant to scare the public. Labor cost is a function of gross sales and has nothing to do with extra or fewer taxes or any other incentives.


    quote from tsing tao:


    That MIGHT have something to do with a failure of our government to assure the fair pricing of imports within our marketplace. And I wonder ... just how many of those jobs lost here to other countries were lost because an opportunity was seen to be able to make MORE profit, rather than some profit and and leaving jobs here ???
     
    #16     Aug 18, 2011
  7. It couldn't have been painted in the U.S.? Why do you feel compelled to make excuses?
     
    #17     Aug 18, 2011
  8. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    1. I know it's not DOUBLE taxed. As I said, I was stating what I think he meant.

    2. So your solution is to raise the cost of imports through....taxation?

    3. PROFIT rules BUSINESS. To suggest it should be otherwise is asinine. Cut into PROFIT with taxation, and BUSINESS will move where it can find cheaper alternatives. And it will take it's jobs with it.

    4. As for whether higher income taxes leads to lower jobs, I'd refer you to a chart that shows what states people are moving to in the US, and where they are moving from. And then look at unemployment rates in those states over the same time frame.
     
    #18     Aug 18, 2011
  9. Ricter

    Ricter

    I'm not excusing, I'm speaking from experience with North American manufacturing. For automotive it's safe to say that most (but not by much, a lot of imports from abroad go into vehicles now) of that product's inputs were made in the US and so benefited American labor directly. If the painting, for example, could be done cheaper in the US I assure you the manufacturer would have painted it there. At every step, landed costs (to put it simply) have to be considered.
     
    #19     Aug 18, 2011
  10. Sure you're making excuses. Now your excuse is that Odumbo was "saving" the taxpayers money. Maybe we should be grateful... NOT!
     
    #20     Aug 18, 2011