(03-01-2011 05:59 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(03-01-2011 02:14 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(03-01-2011 06:55 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Until Exxon, General Electric and Bank of America pay federal taxes we're whistling past the graveyard

You realize that if a business' taxes are raised, they only extend that expense onto the consumer by pricing their goods and services at a higher price.

Businesses are subject to competition (the government isn't). If they try and profit too high a % off their goods and services, some other business will attempt to profit a lower %. The consumer will likely go with the 2nd business because they are less expensive. When you raise taxes on these companies, they will just add it as another expense and will have to send the bill to the consumer in order to keep their profits at the same %.

Well by all means let's not ask them to pay their fair share. I'll continue to support 100% of the corporate welfare

Did you even read before you responded?

Let's assume you raise gas taxes by a penny... As this tax affects ALL sellers of gas equally, everybody will raise their price by a penny and maintain their margins. The CONSUMER pays the tax. DOn't you notice when oil prices change, gas prices change. Does it matter if that "cost" change is the result of higher oil costs, higher gas taxes or higher taxes on earnings?

If you raise taxes on ALL corporations by a penny... Guess what... everyone's costs go up by a penny... Guess who pays that penny? Oh, except for FORIEGN corporations who might be exempt from some of these taxes... way to encourage shipping more jobs overseas.

Paying their fair share?? THEY DON'T PAY THEM AT ALL! WHY is this so hard for some people to grasp?

Cut corporate welfare all you want. I'm with you.

(03-01-2011 05:59 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Well by all means let's not ask them to pay their fair share. I'll continue to support 100% of the corporate welfare

If business taxes are zero, competition will fairly quickly lower the price of goods and services by the amount they were previously taxed. Business profit would remain the same, not increase, and the consumer would have more money to purchase more goods (resulting in more taxes too).

There is no "fair share" for a business. They will only pass their share onto the consumer. Eliminate the business tax on consumers by eliminating the business tax.

(03-01-2011 05:33 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-01-2011 05:20 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-01-2011 03:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-01-2011 02:14 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(03-01-2011 06:55 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Until Exxon, General Electric and Bank of America pay federal taxes we're whistling past the graveyard

You realize that if a business' taxes are raised, they only extend that expense onto the consumer by pricing their goods and services at a higher price.
Businesses are subject to competition (the government isn't). If they try and profit too high a % off their goods and services, some other business will attempt to profit a lower %. The consumer will likely go with the 2nd business because they are less expensive. When you raise taxes on these companies, they will just add it as another expense and will have to send the bill to the consumer in order to keep their profits at the same %.

Lots of liberals don't get this at all. They think SOMEBODY will simply eat the tax... ignoring the fact that if they were willing to cut their margins because of a tax, they'd be willing to cut their margins WITHOUT the tax. Either way, they're undercutting their competition.

Sadly, it's the same with shipping jobs overseas....not saying I'm necessarily for it, but cheaper call centers and the like = cheaper products.

That's true, but there's a big difference in salaries and other costs as well, when you move it overseas. Those differences are much bigger than the tax differences.

Depends on where you are going. China, yes; Germany, no.

Actually, there is a range of considerations, including but not limited to:
-Cost of labor (we lose to third world countries, about a push with many developed countries)
-Productivity (influenced by education and infrastructure, two areas where we used to win but don't any more)
-Taxes (we lose to everybody)
-Legal and regulatory concerns (corporations tend not to worry about the cost of something like environmental compliance nearly as much as the uncertainty about what those costs MIGHT be and excessive delays getting them resolved; so a place like Norway can have stricter environmental requirements but still beat us here because in their system the costs are pretty certain and answers cme quickly)
-Market proximity (we win, but not as big as we used to, and this is less important with today's transportation and communication)
-Proximity to raw materials (we win some, we lose some)
-Risks (economic/political/currency, we used to win big here, but the bailouts have hurt us on political risk and currency is anyone's guess)

Having sat on committees that made a bunch of these decisions, it's funny how often everything else pretty much offsets and taxes are the tiebreaker. I think corporate decision-makers may overemphasize taxes a bit, but that's because the tax effect is probably the most easily quantifiable of all. Taxes may not be the biggest number, but the big numbers offset more often than not and taxes become the decider. Like stepping to the foul line with two free throws with 0.1 seconds left and your team trailing 88-89. Those two free throws account for only about 1% of the points in the game--but it's a very important 1%.

What we have is the highest marginal rates, but a lot of corporate welfare to offset; so companies keep operations here as long as they are sheltered by the corporate welfare provisions, but once those run out and they're going to be paying the going rate, they move offshore. Things like the leasing/operating subsidiaries and the Dutch sandwich come into play.

Cut marginal rates, eliminate corporate welfare, and broaden the tax base--and businesses would make more rational tax decisions, and those decisions would keep more business activity and more jobs and more GDP at home.