One does not stop the juggernaut by throwing oneself in front of it...

ask Gaddafi




http://joeforamerica.wpengine.netdna...s-652x1024.jpg

So i'm curious, is he going to plug the loop holes that allows most of the top 20% to live tax free?

I honestly don't even care if he does.

Take the Corporate Tax rate and make it 0%. That will create more jobs than anything. It cracks me up that people think corporations pay taxes, they pass it on to you in the form of increased prices. So we just get to double pay.

This isnt just for corporations though.

This.

Just this.

Only consumers pay taxes.

Well, capital gainers too, I suppose.

​​​​​​​I am glad other people understand this. I have such a hard time explaining to people that it is them the consumer paying for that corporate tax rate, not the corporation.

The top 20% of public assistance check recipients? I hope so.

The top 20% of illegal aliens? That would be nice.

The top 20% of corporations? They pay huge amounts of tax, some of the highest rates in the world.

The top 20% of wage earners? I'm well within that demographic and already pay a shitload more than my share, thank you.

The top 20% of asset holding individuals? You do know that most of those gave money to Hillary, right? The ultra-wealthy love her, don't you know? She sells sweetheart deals to them down by the seashore.

Unfortunately i'm not as willing to accept it as you guys are that the CEO wouldnt just take the extra money and keep the product prices high.

Well if hillary had won i'd be asking the same questions... Not sure why you're pointing it out, i'm far from a hillary supporter.

No. They. Don't. Maybe it says 35% on paper, but that is passed on to us. Let me give you an incredibly rudimentary example.

I own a bar. I sell beer for $1 per glass. To keep the lights on and pay my employees I need to make 0.10 cents per beer. So I buy beer at 0.90 cents per glass, and sell for $1, there is my 0.10 cents of margin.

The government comes in and says "All bars that sell beer must now pay 0.10 cents per glass of beer served."

Well, so they just eliminated my margin and my ability to keep the lights on and pay my employees. So I raise the price of a glass of beer by 0.10 cents to cover this new "beer tax."

Now I sell a glass of beer for $1.10.

Who is paying the tax? You or me, the bar owner?

Great example. So what happens when the government takes away that 10 cents beer tax? Do the prices go down or do you keep the price exactly the same and just pocket the money? So far the CEOs are pocketing the money. Example. Epinephrine shot costs under 50 bucks to manufacture, sell, and advertise. Why did the prices go up from 100 bucks to 700 bucks?

^Similarly, payroll taxes, income tax, Obamacare increases, and all other expenses are passed on to consumers.

I love when people say "tax the rich" for the same reason. Everyone works for someone or buys things from people who are "rich" and will make less money and pay more every time the "rich" are taxed. It's such a shallow, oversimplified version of the world. I just want to pat them on the head and tell them not to worry because they obviously need to be protected from themselves.

Doubtful.

For starters, the average salary of a CEO in the united states in 2015 was $185,850. (source) While there are certainly a lot of CEOs making a million or more within the Fortune 500 list, they are the exception to the rule. Most people who hold the title "CEO" aren't the head of Microsoft or Ford.

But even at those exceptional top levels, the CEO's total compensation is fairly small as a percentage of revenue. In 2015, Mark Fields, the CEO of Ford, earned $17.3 million. That same year, Ford's pre-tax revenue was $10.8 billion. Assume their net effective corporate tax rate is exactly 20% (an oversimplification, but we'll handwave). that's $2.16 billion they paid in corporate tax. (This excludes their contribution to employee income taxes, foreign duties, etc.)

Do you really think that if Ford's tax bill went to zero that they'd give Mark Fields a 1,100% pay raise? That wouldn't go over particularly well with either the shareholders or the public. Especially in a non-monopolistic environment in which this free money gives the company all sorts of extra margin to play with. After all, Ford's not going to pass up the opportunity to suddenly sell their cars for 20% less than Chevrolet without taking any hit to the bottom line.

No, lowering the corporate tax rate would principally have the effect of lowering prices, and would likely also increase investor returns by a small amount as a balance is sought between margin and pricing.

Care to look up the reasons why the cost of epipens increased nearly 7 times the original cost? Mind explaining why Heather Breschs salary increased by 671% after the price hike?

Because they could. The fact they got caught was an "aw shit". But back to the corporate tax thing and lowering it, I can't think of any business owners, that I know at least, that would reduce prices unless there's a competitive reason to do so or a need to do so.

And of course the buyer pays for everything in a perfect business world.

If the Trump/Ryan tax plan goes through my tax bill goes down from 25%+\- to 15%. You think I'm going to reduce my fees?

Because health law legislation lobbied for by, and designed pretty much specifically to protect the current manufacturer of epipens from competition is extremely effective.

Do you really think there aren't half a dozen other companies chomping at the bit right now to manufacture and sell competitive products with the current astronomical profits involved?

Heather Breschs salary increased 7 fold because the company's profits increased 30 fold, and generally it's in a company's best interest to financially reward someone who can be attributed to substantially increased profits.

No, if a 10 cent tax on beer were to be cut today, you would see a $1.20 decrease in the price of whatever the budget 12-pack is tomorrow. Your favorite beer may not drop by $1.20 tomorrow, but in a year or two, it will drop.

You'll reduce your fees if your customer base chooses to go elsewhere because your competition reduced theirs in order to get more customers themselves. If they don't choose to go elsewhere, then your prices were too low to begin with ;-)

Just gonna throw this here cause I love the Clinton family so much...
​​​​​​​Attachment 178012

If there's competitive pressure sure... But there isn't. And there isn't an abundance of people doing what we do with experience. You seem to forget if everyone gets a tax break we're all in the same boat. Prices to the consumer do not go down just as a result of a tax break to business is my point earlier.

Only if there's a competitive pressure or a want to take market share from a competitor does a business owner/corporation lower prices.

As an example... look at the gross margins of Microsoft (Profit margins 61.65%GM - 11.5% Net), certainly room to drop prices right? They don't (on paper at least) because they don't have to. And, it's the reason people invest capitol in something called a business. They take the risk of loosing money (their invested capitol) and in return get a higher ROI if they're successful. That ROI is hard to come by and we don't give it up without a good reason is my point. Lowering prices just because isn't good enough.

Apart from the existence of free-market capitalism, I agree.

Look at what happened to the cost of air travel and long-distance service after the deregulation of the airline and telephone industries. Both rapidly plunged to previously unimaginable lows in the face of price competition. We all like to bitch about travel costs and wireless rates, but forget that air travel and long distance phone service used to be so expensive that they were essentially luxury goods, and are now taken for granted as a part of everyday life.



If your business is in a competitive retail environment, and you do not already brand yourself as an exclusive luxury commodity, then yes. You'll do it as soon your competitors do.

From your post above, it seems that you may not be in a competitive market. If this is true, then props to you. When I was freelancing, I was charging $150 an hour to type words and draw lines on a screen. I could do this because a combination of luck and skill (mostly luck) had put me in a position where I was basically the only person in the entire world with my particular combination of skills and experience, which were in demand at the time. But I recognize that most people do not enjoy that luxury, just as my time in that particular limelight has passed and I'm back in the corporate world.