schlimm "Corporations don't pay taxes. They pass them on." Another myth that supports the notion if you say an untrue statement enough times, people will believe it to be true. 1. That would imply their product or service was under priced, so that they could raise prices to cover the tax obligation. The market does, in fact, have a sizable impact on pricing. So company X, which made a large profit owes $10 mil. in corporate income taxes. Company Y, a competitor, barely broke even and paid only $1000 in taxes. Do you maintain X can raise its prices enough to cover the tax, while Y doesn't raise theirs? 2. If corporate taxes are merely "passed on" that is largely to their shareholders. 3. If corporations don't pay income tax, why do they bother to spend hundreds of millions on lobbyists, etc. to try to get the rate cut, get loopholes, etc.?
"Corporations don't pay taxes. They pass them on." Another myth that supports the notion if you say an untrue statement enough times, people will believe it to be true.
1. That would imply their product or service was under priced, so that they could raise prices to cover the tax obligation. The market does, in fact, have a sizable impact on pricing. So company X, which made a large profit owes $10 mil. in corporate income taxes. Company Y, a competitor, barely broke even and paid only $1000 in taxes. Do you maintain X can raise its prices enough to cover the tax, while Y doesn't raise theirs?
2. If corporate taxes are merely "passed on" that is largely to their shareholders.
3. If corporations don't pay income tax, why do they bother to spend hundreds of millions on lobbyists, etc. to try to get the rate cut, get loopholes, etc.?
Take a course or two in corporate taxation. Also, throw in a few basic economics courses; they usually cover the economic consequences of taxation. And don't overlook a course or two on accounting and understanding financial statements. Then you might have an understanding of corporate accounting, finance, and taxation.
Other than to respond to some of the ill informed notions regarding corporate taxes, subsidies, etc., these forums are not the proper place for an in-depth discussion of any of these subjects.
When the proponents cannot make the case for their cause, i.e. passenger rail for example, they divert the discussion to extraneous matters, national parks or the defense spend, thereby attempting to hide the core issue.
The key questions are how much money should the United States invest in passenger rail? What should it look like? And how will it be paid for?
Instead of your snide, know-it-all comments, perhaps you would be wise to look and see what some actual economists have to say and then respond with substance, if you can. I did not bring up parks, etc. I merely noted that there are many other subsidies, etc. that you do not object to. It's often true when defenders cannot make the case for their cause, they engage in contemptuous dismissals of the questions others raise, obfuscating and dodging the question.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.