Deficit shrinks by $1 trillion in Obama era

[BotanyBoy]

Careful Jack you are starting to sound like a socialist.

On a more serious note, providing the people at the bottom with more disposable income is a boost to any economy. Give a rich man more money and he just puts it in the safe. Give a poor man more money and he spends it to try and improve his standard of living.

Your government, like ours, has injected cash into the economy. They call it quantitative easing. Effectively they gave it to the banks who supposedly loaned it out. I know this will start a shit storm, but imagine the effect if they gave the money directly to the people in the form of a lump sum tax refund. Instead of sitting in the bank, it would have been spent, putting money into the pockets of retailers, stimulating the demand for goods and causing manufacturers to employ more people to produce the goods. Those newly employed people start paying taxes and around we go. That, of course, doesn't take account of the amount of sales tax that comes back, or the amount of extra tax the retailers and manufacturers pay on their increased profits.

Cuts in the basic rate of tax, only ever really benefit the rich and the more money you have coming in the greater the benefit. The puzzle is why do the poorer people in society still vote for a president who promises to cut taxes? They are not the ones who will ever see any benefit from that.

^^ this.

If they had given it to people thousands of families would have been able to keep their homes etc etc. but then the banks wouldn't have profited QUITE as much and we just can't have that happening.

Also because they're old or paying pay roll tax. Plus, over a person's whole life time they will, at some point, pay a federal income tax. Read this it contains something called nuance.

They might at some point but not while they make 7.25/hr. Those peoples existence is all subsidized by the public coffers and that's a fact.

I notice you didn't piss and moan about your beloved corporations who didn't pay any income tax at all. Or piss and moan about companies like Verizon that had an effective tax rate of -2.8% because they soaked tax payers for $535 million in tax rebates.

1) They aren't beloved.

2) Companies can't, don't and will never pay taxes. They collect them from their consumers and there is absolutely no fucking way around that. From taxing goods and alphabet agencies treating companies like ATM's to million dollar licencing, the consumer (usually poor folks) has to eat that tax FIRST or there is no company to provide them goods.

&

3)That's because they weren't part of the conversation, do try and keep up.

 

[dan_c00000]

2) Companies can't, don't and will never pay taxes.

Right...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/business/images/corptaxrates_graph_2.jpg

It'd be nice if, just once, you didn't complete makeup bullshit. It's so easy to absolutely destroy you and embarrass you that it's actually managed to lose it's charm.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Really Dan you're out of your depth here. Run while he's still in a good mood.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It'd be nice if, just once, you didn't complete makeup bullshit. It's so easy to absolutely destroy you and embarrass you that it's actually managed to lose it's charm.

That loss of charm is the realization that the embarrassment is not mine sneaking in.

And every penny of 'corporate taxes' paid came out of consumers pockets...most of them poor.


When you tax goods/services/companies that provide them you tax the consumer and it disproportionally fucks the poor the hardest....it's an unavoidable...irrefutable...inescapable fact of the consumer based economy.

This is one of the biggest problems that has resulted from the "Yea fuck mega corp!" lefty culture as it helps drive the poor further into poverty. It also further prevents them from rising from poverty because the cost of starting a company that's hit with all these "fuck Corporations!!" taxes becomes ever more difficult and that's good for megacorp.

Reality is we just need to hold rich people down and fuck them harder and quit taxing stuff/companies, that shit ain't working any better than Reaganomics. No matter how appropriate in certain cases it's largely a regressive taxation methodology.

Really Dan you're out of your depth here. Run while he's still in a good mood.

LOL common I'm a happy guy!!

Him and Phrodough both think I'm some gun waving, Bastiat/Reagan worshiping teahaddist or some shit. I don't get it. Maybe because I'm not a toe the line (D) it throws them off. The idea that I can be a lefty and not be totally hung up on (D)ogma must be really hard for them.

 

[Sean Renaud]

In fairness as much as you want to stick to that taxes are only kinda sorta passed on to consumers. Certainly when you start playing big enough they all are but when you start playing big enough the game is too complex to keep track of.

 

[BotanyBoy]

In fairness as much as you want to stick to that taxes are only kinda sorta passed on to consumers. Certainly when you start playing big enough they all are but when you start playing big enough the game is too complex to keep track of.

Yea the paperwork gets fucking insane.

But that kinda sorta part still is that it still ends up in the consumers pocket.

There is a reason we don't tax milk, eggs and bread and their producers are exempt/subsidized. If they were taxed like a plethora of other goods/services the fuckin shit would cost 25 dollars a gallon. And disproportionately fuck the poor....

Taxing consumption instead of income has worked fabulously for the wealthy.

 

[Sean Renaud]

My point is that when I get a flat tax (something you and I have discussed a few times) of x dollars it's hard to pass that down to my customers. It's not a per unit (well I provide a service but still) it's a flat tax. I could save my customers the pain of that $200 dollars by getting 10 more customers. Or by not buying a 4 new video games. Or a little less liquor. I'm not gonna but nobody claims that raising my data plan fucks the poor because they have to pay for their own increase plus the increase for every single business owner they deal with.

 

[BotanyBoy]

My point is that when I get a flat tax (something you and I have discussed a few times) of x dollars it's hard to pass that down to my customers. It's not a per unit (well I provide a service but still) it's a flat tax. I could save my customers the pain of that $200 dollars by getting 10 more customers. Or by not buying a 4 new video games. Or a little less liquor. I'm not gonna but nobody claims that raising my data plan fucks the poor because they have to pay for their own increase plus the increase for every single business owner they deal with.

Then, with all due respect....and I mean ALL due resepect kay...
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhXiMFWGrSXOiD4WCSfTkID-Izj3oNdOiV4_NMQtJmTxOmMQwD
you're business is not big enough to be part of the cool kids club and you SeanR will have to eat that 200 dollar tax. I'm not big but the nature of my bidnizz allows me more flexibility in this department....I raised prices a few cents and actually came out ahead.


Consumption based taxation = so fucking awesome for uber megacorp, Wall Mart loves that shit. They use it to crush mom and pop under their jackbooted heel and toss the burden upon the consumer.

That's why they all started doing it and imo a contributing factor to the rise of the wealth distribution that we have. Not that the sentiment is wrong mind you....just that this jab at them didn't work out the way we had hoped.

Big picture point we really need tax reform....we need to pull the huge rubber cock out of our ass's and place it back in the rich peoples ass where it belongs.

 

[dan_c00000]

Really Dan you're out of your depth here. Run while he's still in a good mood.

And every penny of 'corporate taxes' paid came out of consumers pockets...most of them poor.

You two are such pathetic ass clowns. All me to destroy both of you, easily, again:

Probably most people assume that the corporate income tax is largely paid by consumers of its products or services. That is, they assume that although the tax is nominally levied on the corporation as a whole, in fact the burden of the tax is shifted onto customers in the form of higher prices.

All economists reject that idea.

Know you wrote that? Not some crazy liberal guy but Bruce Fucking Bartlett. Yeah, the same guy who wrote the book on Reagan's conservative economics platform.

Out of my depth? Hardly.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Probably most people assume that the corporate income tax is largely paid by consumers of its products or services. That is, they assume that although the tax is nominally levied on the corporation as a whole, in fact the burden of the tax is shifted onto customers in the form of higher prices.

All economists reject that idea.

Know you wrote that? Not some crazy liberal guy but Bruce Fucking Bartlett.

No they don't, and I don't care because he's wrong.

Corporations dont' have ANY money to tax until they take it from consumers....not 1 cent. Every dollar of tax corporations pay, comes from their consumers.

It's an unavoidable fact Dan....sorry.

 

[DeYaKen]

No they don't, and I don't care because he's wrong.

Corporations dont' have ANY money to tax until they take it from consumers....not 1 cent. Every dollar of tax corporations pay, comes from their consumers.

It's an unavoidable fact Dan....sorry.

This is disturbing, I find myself agreeing with BB again.

Corporation tax is levied on company profits.
Profit is the difference between the cost of production and what the consumer pays.
Ergo profit comes from the consumer, so the tax on that profit must also come from the consumer.
QED

Corporations are very good at avoiding that tax. In the UK Amazon and Starbucks are two shining examples of this.
Starbucks claim that they buy all their ingredients and food, at vastly inflated prices, from a cupboard in a building in Switzerland, where there is no corporation tax. This, they say, means they make no profit in the UK.
Amazon claim that because the orders from the UK are processed in an office in Luxembourg (no corporation tax) Then the sale takes place in Luxembourg and they make no money in the UK.

Shifting the tax from the company profits to the point of sale means that they can't avoid the payment. Yes, it passes the cost directly to the consumer but as BB says the consumer is already paying, they just don't see it. In the long run, the consumer pays no more since the increase in the point of sale taxation pushes the price up and reduces sales. The manufacturer is then forced to reduce the price in order to keep the sales.

http://i1.wp.com/voxpoliticalonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/160313trickledown.jpg
http://i1.wp.com/voxpoliticalonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/160313trickledown2.jpg

 

[Boxlicker101]

No they don't, and I don't care because he's wrong.

Corporations dont' have ANY money to tax until they take it from consumers....not 1 cent. Every dollar of tax corporations pay, comes from their consumers.

It's an unavoidable fact Dan....sorry.

That's not entirely true. Some corps. own stock in other corps. and they receive dividends, which usually come from the profits of the other corp.

In addition to that, income tax is unlike other corp. expenses. It is not directly passed on to the consumers; it is calculated on profit, which is the difference between revenues and expenses.

A company income statement normally starts with total revenues and the second segment is total expenses before income taxes. The latter total is subtracted from the former, after allowing for any non-taxable revenues, and the result is labeled "Net income before taxes" or words to that effect. The next line is income taxes calculated on that profit and the bottom line is income net of taxes.

The income tax is not passed on to consumers because it is based on revenues already received from consumers.

 

[phrodeau]

Just like climate change, as long as there's a single economist who disagrees, there will be people who claim he's absolutely right.

 

[DeYaKen]

That's not entirely true. Some corps. own stock in other corps. and they receive dividends, which usually come from the profits of the other corp.

In addition to that, income tax is unlike other corp. expenses. It is not directly passed on to the consumers; it is calculated on profit, which is the difference between revenues and expenses.

And where do these other corps get their profit from in order to pay that dividend? The consumer.

A company income statement normally starts with total revenues and the second segment is total expenses before income taxes. The latter total is subtracted from the former, after allowing for any non-taxable revenues, and the result is labeled "Net income before taxes" or words to that effect. The next line is income taxes calculated on that profit and the bottom line is income net of taxes.

And where does the revenue come from? The consumer.

The income tax is not passed on to consumers because it is based on revenues already received from consumers.

Of course it is. A business is run for the benefit of the shareholders. The more profit they have, the higher the dividend. The dividend is derived from net profit, i.e. after tax. If you take too much tax they put up their prices to satisfy the shareholders.

 

[AlexVega]

Dan, who is rooting for Verison?


NO ONE!

America's need to pay less taxes.
American Companies need to pay less taxes. YES!

We are not talking about Apple, Google, Verison....Walmart.

Come on people, please grow up and try to become a men.

Also because they're old or paying pay roll tax. Plus, over a person's whole life time they will, at some point, pay a federal income tax. Read this it contains something called nuance.

I notice you didn't piss and moan about your beloved corporations who didn't pay any income tax at all. Or piss and moan about companies like Verizon that had an effective tax rate of -2.8% because they soaked tax payers for $535 million in tax rebates.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Except out taxes are irresponsibly low.

 

[dan_c00000]

I absolutely wrecked this thread. I'm just going to close it down before bot tries to embarrass himself further trying to understand things like shareholders living in different countries, taking loans out in other countries, and obtain profits in a different country. He also wouldn't be able to understand how in an open economy, like the U.S., corporate taxes would largely fall on capital and not labor or consumers.

Anyway, after that absolute destruction of bot's pathetic asshole I'm just gunna close this thread

http://i775.photobucket.com/albums/yy40/azzezino/closed.jpg

 

[phrodeau]

No they don't, and I don't care because he's wrong.

Corporations dont' have ANY money to tax until they take it from consumers....not 1 cent. Every dollar of tax corporations pay, comes from their consumers.

It's an unavoidable fact Dan....sorry.

Boy, I'd sure like to start one of those kinds of businesses. Imagine just selling stuff and raking in cash without having to pay any money up front.

 

[phrodeau]

And where do these other corps get their profit from in order to pay that dividend? The consumer.




And where does the revenue come from? The consumer.



Of course it is. A business is run for the benefit of the shareholders. The more profit they have, the higher the dividend. The dividend is derived from net profit, i.e. after tax. If you take too much tax they put up their prices to satisfy the shareholders.

And when corporations dodge and wheedle out of their taxes, guess who makes up the difference? The consumers.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Shifting the tax from the company profits to the point of sale means that they can't avoid the payment. Yes, it passes the cost directly to the consumer but as BB says the consumer is already paying, they just don't see it. In the long run, the consumer pays no more since the increase in the point of sale taxation pushes the price up and reduces sales. The manufacturer is then forced to reduce the price in order to keep the sales.

That would be a horrible way to do things as it's hugely proportionally taxing poor folks and reducing the consumers ability to consume.

That's BAD for a consumer based economy.

What we need to start doing is taxing income and wealth more, hold the top 10% down and take a good chunk of their money. Sure it will be billions and billions a year. But they are going to just have to learn to live with a half million dollar a month lunch budget instead of their usual 2million a month lunch budget and cry us all a river....god damn roads need to get fixed before we start looking like fuckin Sudan.

That's not entirely true. Some corps. own stock in other corps. and they receive dividends, which usually come from the profits of the other corp.

In addition to that, income tax is unlike other corp. expenses. It is not directly passed on to the consumers; it is calculated on profit, which is the difference between revenues and expenses.

The income tax is not passed on to consumers because it is based on revenues already received from consumers.

Yes it is....those dividends don't show up unless that company is taking money from consumers.

ALL corporate taxation falls to the consumer. How much the company decides to eat out of their own profits in order to stay competitive is up to them but every penny every company has all runs back to the consumers.

Without consumers giving the company money there is no company and there are no taxes.

Corporations/LLC's/SP's ect. don't pay taxes, they collect them 100%.

Except out taxes are irresponsibly low.

Totally agree.

I will say though if we didn't have companies scamming the shit out of the tax payers because they DC whatever legislation they want and it passes. Then we simply wouldn't need to tax as much. There is a lot going on but that shit ain't helping.

I mean we in theory should be able to get all of our social services for about 1/2-1/3 what we spend, and we have untold numbers of things the pentagon doesn't even work but we continue to pile up never to be sold/used ever on military bases around the world. Trillions just pissed into nothing....because fixing roads is evil socialism!!

I absolutely embarrassed myself

Yep......

 

[BotanyBoy]

Boy, I'd sure like to start one of those kinds of businesses. Imagine just selling stuff and raking in cash without having to pay any money up front.

Who said anything about not paying any money up front?

 

[phrodeau]

Who said anything about not paying any money up front?

You did.

"Without consumers giving the company money there is no company and there are no taxes."

"Corporations dont' have ANY money to tax until they take it from consumers....not 1 cent."

 

[DeYaKen]

That would be a horrible way to do things as it's hugely proportionally taxing poor folks and reducing the consumers ability to consume.

That's BAD for a consumer based economy.

What we need to start doing is taxing income and wealth more, hold the top 10% down and take a good chunk of their money. Sure it will be billions and billions a year. But they are going to just have to learn to live with a half million dollar a month lunch budget instead of their usual 2million a month lunch budget and cry us all a river....god damn roads need to get fixed before we start looking like fuckin Sudan.

Yes, it is unfair. taxing income is a much better way since the biggest burden falls on those with the greatest ability to pay. Your politicians (who are all wealthy) will tell you that it discourages enterprise and all your wealth creators will leave the country. When they do you point them in the direction of Scandinavian countries with high income tax and booming economies.

I only mentioned point of sale taxation as a means gathering taxes from multinational companies who do their best to hide profits to avoid taxation. Taxing their dividends would also work.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You did.

"Without consumers giving the company money there is no company and there are no taxes."

"Corporations dont' have ANY money to tax until they take it from consumers....not 1 cent."

No I didn't.

Unless they started taxing start up loans a company or person got from their consumers or personal savings that's already had taxes paid on it.

And even then, without consumers giving you money you're not paying those loans/licencing/inspections etc. or collecting any honest tax revenue for the state now are you?

Nope...losing your ass is what's happening.

Consumers based economy....consumers support the business or there is no business, it's really that simple.

You think if EVERYONE on planet Earth stopped shopping at Wal Mart, there would be a Wal Mart for very long? How long do you think they could make it without 1 single customer?? How much tax do you think they are gonna pay?

Bet the ask for a bail out because too big to fail, get some of that magical out of thin air liburhul dollaz right? LOL

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yes, it is unfair. taxing income is a much better way since the biggest burden falls on those with the greatest ability to pay. Your politicians (who are all wealthy) will tell you that it discourages enterprise and all your wealth creators will leave the country.

Yea....Reagan was full of shit.

When they do you point them in the direction of Scandinavian countries with high income tax and booming economies.

Except Scandinavian countries are smart, if your not a genius, rich as fuck or marrying one of their citizens then you don't get to live there.

And the US just would not want to be that racist, the whole planet would FREAK THE FUCK OUT on us and call us racist for decades if we instituted a Scandinavianesque immigration policy.

I only mentioned point of sale taxation as a means gathering taxes from multinational companies who do their best to hide profits to avoid taxation. Taxing their dividends would also work.

I don't even buy that, I think it's just a lazy way to fuck poor people more because they own the government. Which I think is a whole other shit storm that needs to be destroyed. Unfortunately it looks like we are going to stick with that system for at least another 4 years.

Personally I think it would just be easier to end the free for all wealth exportation out of the US, shit needs to be stopped with a variety of tariffs and taxes. But I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.