When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I mean, in a way, it's even funnier than calling residents of Tampa, FL "Tampons," which is a real thing that people from other parts of western-central FL do, when they're not busy committing hilariously inept criminal acts while naked, high, and covered in bacon grease.
That's the point. Everyone hates income tax, and a lot of people support the idea of increased corporate taxation. But they're ignoring the fact that corporate taxation is worse for them than income taxes. Any time a business incurs an increase in operating cost, that results in lower wages (or fewer raises) for employees, and increased cost to consumers, at a rate which is ultimately disproportionate to the effect which would have occurred if the consumers / employees had simply paid that tax directly.
Revisiting this real quick. I like how you put it as far as "if we were to increase taxes on something, it should be the individual not corporations." My question is, if tax breaks happen - say, either do a tax cut on income taxes vs corporate taxes... does it still follow? Upon a tax cut, would corporations then reduce prices or would they pocket the difference? I'd argue the latter, but at the same time that wouldn't mean we're in disagreement. I think it's that people don't want to separate the two...e.g. "since a corporation would just pocket the difference if a tax cut happened to them... we should instead increase their taxes instead of ours" - and that's incorrect. Am I getting this right?
Revisiting this real quick. I like how you put it as far as "if we were to increase taxes on something, it should be the individual not corporations." My question is, if tax breaks happen - say, either do a tax cut on income taxes vs corporate taxes... does it still follow? Upon a tax cut, would corporations then reduce prices or would they pocket the difference? I'd argue the latter, but at the same time that wouldn't mean we're in disagreement. I think it's that people don't want to separate the two...e.g. "since a corporation would just pocket the difference if a tax cut happened to them... we should instead increase their taxes instead of ours" - and that's incorrect. Am I getting this right?
Theoretically, if they were to just "pocket the difference" then that would increase the window of opportunity for a competitor to cut into their market share. Also keep in mind that the savings from the reduced tax rates run through the entire supply chain as well, so for a manufacturer their suppliers will also see pressure to reduce prices resulting in further cost savings etc.
In the real world we have an inflationary fiscal policy, so tax rate savings may manifest themselves not as price cuts but slower price increases. The barriers to entry are also different in various industries: a service-based business would be more likely to reduce prices due to competitive pressures than a utility company (where competition is generally banned by law).
If five competitors all had their taxes drop by the same amount you would likely see a combination of things. You would likely see an increase in spending on research and design, benefits and wages to increase employee retention if that is a problem or upgrade employee quality, reinvestment in improved production for improved efficiency or quality, or immediately dropping the price to gain a sales volume advantage over their competitors.
It sounds like you believe profits are obscene though they are what businesses use to make improvements and try to better their competitors. If profits weren't made then you iPhone users would still be using the original model because they would not have made enough money to develop and retool for the iPhone 2 3 4, Etc. These companies just don't sit on the money when they make it. That's a fallacy. They use the money to try and make better products and gain more market share and make a more efficient production stream than their competitors. If they stuff that money in a bank or stick it in their pockets instead of reinvesting it someone will come steal their lunch eventually.
This doesn't apply evenly to all items. IPhones, for instance, are not worth nearly what the drooling masses are willing to pay for them. Just like trendy clothes. And Harley Davidsons. And tickets to professional sporting events . When you pay significantly too much for a product don't be upset when the company principals are rolling around in swimming pools full of hundred dollar bills. It isn't their fault that the average consumer is a moron who likes shiny objects. A fool and his money are soon parted.
0
