IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Are we talking absolute, or percentage? Inflation adjusted?
"So you can continue to spin this however you want...but people who make under 250k will give more of their money to the government."

If my income tax rate goes down, but I pay more user fees for plane tickets -- which I can afford because my taxes are lower -- am I giving more of my money to the government?

No, I could do examples like that all day. The real issue is what segment of society is paying the larger share of the taxes. If the 5% of people making 80% of the money are paying 50% of the taxes, I think the system is wrong. That group of people overwhelmingly makes their money from corporations. Taxing corporations seems like a reasonable way to pass that tax on to the wealthy.

Without ignoring Econ 101 that says the market sets prices, can you explain how increased corporate taxes will extract more money from poor people than from wealthy people? Not anecdotally or theoretically, are there real examples you can point to?
--

Drew
New what percentage of your working life
involved with making money from corporations?
as for your request for a concrete example
The latest research shows that people with low income (less than $25,000/year) and less education (high school diploma or less) smoke at higher rates than the general population and are less likely to quit successfully. smoking among these groups has not dropped significantly in recent years.
so who is going to pick up the corporate tax just imposed by obama on cigarettes? Poor folks not the rich folks
now dont try to weasel, the tax is assessed at the corporate level and collected before a ciggie makes it out the door.
so how many other corporate taxes are passed on to the same folk? Well whatever they buy there will be a nice corporate tax bill in that price somewhere.
New On quitting smoking.
Most systems don't work. Here's one that is better than most.

http://www.nydailyne...success_ra-1.html

Dangling enough dollars in front of smokers who want to quit helps many more succeed, an experiment with hundreds of General Electric Co. workers indicates. Among those paid up to $750 to quit and stay off cigarettes, 15 percent were still tobacco-free about a year later. That may not sound like much, but it's three times the success rate of a comparison group that got no such bonuses.

GE was so impressed it plans to offer an incentive program nationwide next year, aiming to save some of the company's estimated $50 million annually in extra health and other costs for smoking employees.


Imagine that - getting people to quit saves money. Whodathunkit. ;-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New Absolute.
How about 40% of the people making 20% of the money paying 0% of the taxes? Would you consider that broken too?

Will taxing Microsoft products effect Bill Gates in any real fashion? Will it change his tax burden? Will adding a 5$ iPod tax change Steve Job's tax burden?

Or rather, will adding those taxes mean that there are 500-1000 less people working for MS or Apple? or the next gen ipod touch sells for 254 instead of 249.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New if we raise taxes on booksellers on the web
lets say a flat fee of $2.00 per book, like the smoke tax. How would that affect your book price? Not trying to be picky, just taking a real example that many of us understand clearly.
thanx,
bill
New Wouldn't affect it much
It would affect my profit though. I adjusted the price to what the market would bear. In fact, I have it higher than I need to turn a profit, because people think inexpensive things are worth less.
--

Drew
New thank you for proving my point
who pays taxes, corporations or people
people one way or the other
you as the sole shareholder of your corporation opted to pay the tax in full. Your corp did not pay anything, you as an individual did.

now as beep notes further down, you now have $2 less per book to spend on your own needs. The government has just shrunk your disposable income meaning that downstream of you the folks will also make $2 per book less in income. These guys, the meat market, the liquor store owner, the bakery has to eat the book tax
thanks,
bill
New It's a pointless one
If your whole point is that corporations are a legal fiction, and that corporate taxes are ultimately paid by people ... well no shit, Sherlock. You really think whoever it is you've been arguing with doesn't get that?

Or if your whole point -- and I think this really is what Beep is arguing -- is that every dollar a rich person pays in taxes is a dollar that he doesn't eventually pay to a plumber or burger flipper, so taxes on the wealthy eventually "hurt the poor" ... well that's a stupid point. Really.

Every tax dollar comes initially from someone. If that first taxpayer is a rich person, they may save less, they may invest less, they may buy a smaller boat, they may vacation in Vail for two weeks instead of three. So eventually some working-class person doesn't make as much. But if the first taxpayer is a poor person, there's going to be something they don't buy that week. That's how it works when you're living paycheck-to-paycheck. You spend every dollar you've got from every paycheck, and you do it by the time the next paycheck comes.

Republicans always argue that every dollar of taxes ultimately hurts poor people. So the tax should be eliminated. But that's not really the alternative in play. If the tax is going to be collected -- and if you don't control the spending first then it is going to be collected -- then you have to decide who pays it directly. And if that's a rich person, for you to argue that "it's really a tax on poor people" is bullshit.

We -- meaning those of us who keep telling you that you're full of shit for making the argument -- really do understand what you're saying. We really do understand how "the cost is ultimately passed on the the poor". But that's only true if you're having the "should there be a tax at all?" discussion. We're not having that discussion. As long as the government is spending it, we are collecting taxes. So the discussion we're having is, who should we collect it from.
--

Drew
New ????
Nice invention of a point...too bad it wasn't mine.

What I'm telling you is that your thought that taxing corporations hurts rich people more is bullpucky.

What I'm also telling you is that the myth being thrown around that people making under 250k won't pay more taxes is also bullpucky.

"Poor" people spend more as a proportion of their income...so when you hike use taxes and other consumption taxes...it effects people that make less. You yourself have argued, correctly, that sales taxes are regressive.

What you should SEE HAPPENING NOW...is this simple truth..Obama said "no new taxes"..and he won't raise income taxes...but the administration, congress and government has a whole WILL and ARE raising taxes...and raising in ways that are regressive...in other words...nice talk...but in the end its crap...and you are going to pay for it.

In no post in this thread have I taken the republican position with the possible exception of saying that without loopholes..the 25 and 10 tax plan may end up bring in more revenue..making it optional is stupid.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New Evidence, please.
Point me to a bill introduced by the majority or signed by Obama that will raise taxes on "everyone".

Cheers,
Scott.
New The cig tax
is regressive. Passed by the majority. Signed by Obama. Might not be paid by everyone...but they'll get there.


I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New I've already addressed that.
Not everyone smokes. HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Wait for the next one.
It'll come. But you might find it to be in a "more appealing" package.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New Put up or shut up
"Poor" people spend more as a proportion of their income...so when you hike use taxes and other consumption taxes...it effects people that make less. You yourself have argued, correctly, that sales taxes are regressive.
I don't think I have argued that. But regardless, your response to every tax proposal seems to be that it will hurt poor people more than rich people. Like I said, that's the "don't have any taxes" discussion. If the government is spending the money, we're not having that discussion.

So let's suppose the government is going to spend money. They need to collect the money from somewhere. We'd like the impact of that collection to hit the rich more than it hits the poor. What tax would you propose to achieve this goal? It's easy to point out the flaws in someone else's proposal. What's your proposal?

I don't think you can answer that. I believe you will argue -- because I think you believe it to be true -- that any tax will affect the poor more than it affects the rich. But again, that's the "don't have any taxes" discussion. We're not having that. If Since we must have taxes, how can they be assessed to reduce the burden on the poor as much as possible, compared to other tax plans?
--

Drew
New You are on crack, arent' you.
I'm not arguing a plan. I'm telling you a reality.

You want something that will dis proportionally impact rich people, impose a one time 25% tax on all accumulated wealth over $10M.

It really isn't that hard to come up with a plan. The current tax structure really only impacted the top 50% in any material fashion.

What I'm telling you, AGAIN, is that if you think that the income tax plan is the end all, be all of the increase in taxes that are planned or will occur during this administration...then you really are on crack. And that these changes, like the smoke tax, will be paid for by people making under 250k. Count on it.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New You're putting up a proposition about taxes.
Drew and I are asking for evidence. You say that Obama and the Democrats will raise taxes on "everyone". Please put up some evidence of concrete bills (other than the SCHIP which has already been addressed - it doesn't cover "everyone").

Thanks.

Cheers,
Scott.
New cap and trade will get everyone
New It's supposed to be impact neutral to family budgets.
http://washingtonind...-on-cap-and-trade

“What we specified in the budget is a cap-and-trade target,” Orszag said. There are a number of paths to reach this target, and the budget team did not get into specifics when creating its projection. “Under any plausible path,” Orszag said, “there is sufficient funding to do the energy efficiency investments” and finance tax credits for low- and middle-income workers, as specified in the budget.

“We are expecting that cap-and-trade will raise at least $600 billion,” he continued, adding that any additional resources would be used to offset higher energy costs for households across the country.


It's not a bill at this point, and they plan on offsets. HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Yep...and the government has never lied to you, have they?
So only rich people and big evil corporations will pay the extra trillion or so...and it won't affect little old me at all.

Can I come live in your reality? Its much nicer over there.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New So you oppose this. What do you support?
--

Drew
New Once again
you invented a position from a simple and very direct statement.

That statement was "people making under 250k will pay more taxes".

I didn't say this was good, bad or indifferent. I didn't say I supported it or opposed it.

I didn't say it was strictly based on income taxes, corporate taxes, tooth fairy taxes or any other taxes.

The simple statement was...by the end of this admnisitration, which had promised people making under 250k that they would not pay any more in taxes...these people would be paying more taxes.

How you got from there to "Bill says that all taxes hurt poor people" is beyond me.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New read obamas lips, he is lying like every other pol
New don't tell scott that
least till after the chin wipe.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New naw, he is desparate to believe in the dream
too bad it died in 1968 and the hucksters took possession of the corpse and drag it around the block every 4 years banging drums, blowing kazzos and speechifying before putting it back into the closet and back to ripping off the citizenry business as usual
thanx,
bill
New Specifics would be nice.
http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/

Under the Obama Plan:

* Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.

* Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.

* Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.


Point me to specifics that go against what he has said. In condensing 3 paragraphs into a sentence, sometimes words get left out. Shocking, I know. Show me a bill that's pushed by the majority or that Obama has signed that goes against those 3 paragraphs.

Thus far, all you've given is your opinion.

Thanks.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Couple reminders
http://iwt.mikevital...w.iwt?postid=9716
Taxes will go up. On everybody. Maybe not income taxes..but trust me...families making under 250k will pay more cumulative taxes by the end of this administration.

Okay, that's the "simple statement" you seem to be referring to.


http://iwt.mikevital...w.iwt?postid=9719
Fed cigarette and alcohol taxes, excise taxes on airline tickets, utilities etc...increases in taxes on manufacturers passed on via price increases, et al. Tax burdens, each and every one. Add them up sometime.

http://iwt.mikevital...w.iwt?postid=9810
The cig tax is regressive.

So now you are starting to name some of the other taxes.


http://iwt.mikevital...w.iwt?postid=9769
How about 40% of the people making 20% of the money paying 0% of the taxes? Would you consider that broken too?

Will taxing Microsoft products effect Bill Gates in any real fashion? Will it change his tax burden? Will adding a 5$ iPod tax change Steve Job's tax burden?

Or rather, will adding those taxes mean that there are 500-1000 less people working for MS or Apple? or the next gen ipod touch sells for 254 instead of 249.


To the first point, you are clearly suggesting that you do think the two lowest quintiles paying no taxes is "broken". And since I never answered the question, no I don't think that's broken.

To the second point, you are clearly suggesting that the iPod tax (meaning taxing corporations) leads to people losing their jobs. You did it again here:

http://iwt.mikevital...w.iwt?postid=9797
If you want to complicate it and say "company x cuts costs so they don't have to pass it on"...company x has just fired 100 people..those 100 people are consumers.

If you're suggesting that raising corporate taxes will lead to job losses -- and if you're not, then what was your point? -- you're suggesting that adding corporate taxes leads to a bad outcome. That sounds suspiciously like a value statement. Something you're now claiming you never made. Or are you now going to say that threatened job losses are not "bad" just a "simple statement"?


http://iwt.mikevital...w.iwt?postid=9803
What I'm telling you is that your thought that taxing corporations hurts rich people more is bullpucky.

First, let's not talk about taxes "hurting" anyone. That pure talking point bullshit.

Now, this is actually the key issue I'm asking you to take a position on. If you accept the premise that taxes will be levied somehow, then all tax plans are different ways of assessing the tax burden. You have repeatedly asserted without evidence that "families making under 250k will pay more cumulative taxes by the end of this administration".

You have alluded to reasons why this is true. What I'm asking you to do is offer an alternative. If you are so convinced that this administration's actions will result in families making under 250k paying more taxes, what actions could the administration take that you think would not have this result?

If, as I've said, your answer is that there is no way to asses taxes that wouldn't have this outcome, then what would have the least impact? Stop sniping and offer an alternative.


http://iwt.mikevital...w.iwt?postid=9815
It really isn't that hard to come up with a plan.

Great! And yours is ... ?


--

Drew
New Reminders of what, exactly?
Me pointing out things brought forward in your posts?

Its a simple statement. I and others like me (people making under 250k) will pay more taxes.

There is no alternative. When government spending goes up by more than a trillion dollars, EVERYONE will pay for it.

You seem to want that burden to be shared by one class more than another (it already is http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29861648// ) . I'm simply stating that the burden will be felt by everyone..and that proportionally people with less money will feel it more than people with more...and the why is simple...they have less money to start with. Now, to make you happy I have to tell you ways that I think would be less palatable to one group or another? Why? I'm going to pay more taxes. Nothing I propose or anyone else will propose that will change that. And I certainly am not making more than 250k. I think I would have noticed.

On the "feel" front again...the same issue is used to argue against income tax cuts of any kind. Rich people get bigger breaks with them. The why is simple...because they make more income. Its not opinion...its mathematics. So tax cuts are bad..unless they're "targeted". In which case, it just takes longer to get to it final resting place...which is anyone who buys anything.

The point on corporate taxes is painfully simple. Its a zero sum game. Consumers WILL pay the tax in one form or another. The layoffs are one logical outcome of your statement that "maybe they won't pass it on"..with the corresponding pressure to insure that it doesn't hurt their bottom line (ie...the rich people you want to pay). And it still lives the "rich" people running those companies completely unscathed. You can look at it another way...maybe the $5 price hike has the exactly predicted economic outcome (people by fewer at higher prices...supply and demand...basic Fr Guido Sarducci econ 101)...so they buy fewer parts..less growth in the supply channel will mean fewer jobs (maybe not layoffs..but positions that would have to be filled will not be...like guys throwing boxes around in their warehouse)...or maybe they gain efficiency by cutting travel expenses (meaning that folks in the travel industry ..like hotel cleaning staff, airline gate agents, ground crew) are displaced.(not that this would ever happen...unless of course you talk to some hotel managers that are seeing this happen right now).

If it appeared to put me in a "position" of corporate taxes are bad..it did so in your head only. Its straight logical outcome from the zero sum nature of corporate taxes.

Does this mean I think they should be eliminated? Nope. Should they be raised? Not if you consider the potential impact on our competitiveness in a global marketplace and the other issues that come along with that. (as I've pointed out before, we're already pretty darned high) But make no mistake, you and I pay those taxes at the end of the day and will also suffer any impact of loss of competitiveness in an ever more global environment.

At no point is their a "least impact" position until you start taxing STORED income. So while you think it will never pass, the only way to get out of consumer driven taxes is to tax wealth. This is how you get away from the gamesmanship of someone like Warren Buffet...who pays himself 100k/yr and a slight bonus. Do you think ANY proposal brought forth but mine will impact him in any real fashion, passable or no?

You seem to think that I must have a "position" here. Ok then. My position is simple. I want to keep as much of my money as possible. I'm getting income tax relief from the Obama plan (hurray). And I'm telling you now that when I add up the cumulative taxes I pay during this year, I will be paying more. I really don't care about how it impacts you, Bill Gates or Joe the plumber. Would I like to pay less and have Bill Gates hit with a billion dollar tax bill? You betcha...but you've told me thats not possible.




I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New A "bill of attainder" is unconstitutional. HTH.
New tell that to the congress re: aig bonus taxes :-)
New Notice that talk of that died down in the Senate.
Lots of people think it would be unconstitutional for that very reason.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Key difference
the bill in consideration was only aimed at companies taking TARP money. It wasn't universally applied to the entire population of bonus earners.

The "wealth tax" is not an attainder. It is a "land grab" that falls in that spirit..but as its NOT a complete confiscation it could very well pass constitutional muster.

Want to make it even more palatable? Make it a 35% immediate tax and for anyone paying that tax, forgive that estate of any further inheritance tax.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New Back up.
I was replying to your closing statement about wanting to see Bill Gates pay a $1B tax and how you didn't understand why that wasn't feasible.

That isn't going to happen, because that would be a bill of attainder. It's unconstitutional. The legislature can't single out a person for punishment.

http://en.wikipedia....er#American_usage

Sorry, I'm not going to bite on even more topic drift. ;-)

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New read back
wealth tax on anyone with assets over 10M.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New Wasn't my intention to focus on corporate taxes
Do you really think a "wealth tax" would pass? In a society recently conditioned to think of inheritance tax as a "death tax"? When people talk about "punishing success" if you try to target a tax at the wealthy? When the debate is framed in terms of who will be "hurt" by a tax?

That's the problem with the constant anti-tax message. The whole concept of taxation is demonized to the point that it's impossible to even discuss the best way to implement it.
--

Drew
New what is this recently BS?
even ancient roman texts discuss the injustice of the empire seizing the lands and goods of the recently deceased leaving the progeny poor
thanx,
bill
New The inheritance tax doesn't do that
Pretending it does isn't honest debate. It's a talking point.
--

Drew
New so the state only seizes 45% difference in degree only
in britain the confiscation rate was at 90% plus just a few years ago. Its exactly the same thing, the state confiscating income that has already been taxed
thanx,
bill
New So 0.5% would *also* difference in degree only?
"Some" "half" "most" and "all" are not just differences in degree.

Second point, I pay state income tax. Doesn't that make state sales tax "confiscating income that has already been taxed"? Why does that suddenly become unacceptable when it's inheritance tax?
--

Drew
New so one only rents money from the state?
after you have lived your life you need to turn it back in? Nice world you want to live in. Never owning anything, le stat uber alles
no thanx,
bill
New I'll take a page from Beep's playbook for this one
I never said I wanted anything. I just asked some questions about the alternatives. Can't accuse me of having a position here.
--

Drew
New :-) you said complaining about said tax was recent
I was merely pointing out that it has been bitched about since government was invented
New bing bing bing
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New No, I said calling it a "death tax" was recent
That's what language murder does. It's done intentionally to ensure even reasonable questions can't be asked.
--

Drew
New Exactly.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-- H.L. Mencken
New sure it is
http://www.heritage..../taxes/bg1719.cfm
the language murder is calling them estate taxes, death is when they are imposed
Estate taxes are not a new phenomenon; they date back almost three thousand years. As early as 700 B.C., there appears to have been a 10 percent tax on the transfer of property at death in Egypt.1 In the first century A.D., Augustus Caesar imposed a tax on successions and legacies to all but close relatives.

Transfer taxes during the Middle Ages grew out of the fact that the sovereign or the state owned all assets. Although the king owned all real property in feudal England, he would grant its use to certain individuals during their lifetimes. When they died, the king would let the estate retain the property upon payment of an estate tax.

In the United States, the tradition of taxing assets at death began with the Stamp Act of 1797. While the first Stamp Act on tea helped precipitate the Revolutionary War, the second was far less dramatic. Revenues from requiring a federal stamp on wills in probate were used to pay off debts incurred during the undeclared naval war with France in 1794. Congress repealed the Stamp Act in 1802.
apparently you may be more medieval than you appear
"Transfer taxes during the Middle Ages grew out of the fact that the sovereign or the state owned all assets"
New Don't be intentionally dense. It's unbecoming.
http://en.wikipedia...._Tax.22_neologism

The political use of "death tax" as a synonym for "estate tax" was popularized in the Gingrich period by Jack Faris of the National Federation of Independent Business. [25] It has been widely but inaccurately attributed to Republican pollster Frank Luntz. In a memo, Luntz wrote that the term "death tax" "kindled voter resentment in a way that 'inheritance tax' and 'estate tax' do not" [26].

Linguist George Lakoff alleges the phrase is a deliberate and carefully calculated neologism which is used as a propaganda tactic to aid in the repeal of estate taxes. However the use of "death tax" rather than "estate tax" in the wording of questions in the 2002 National Election Survey increased support for estate tax repeal by only a few percentage points.[27]


FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New I have heard the term death tax since I was a kid
fookin death taxes, the earl has to rent out his bedroom to pay the fooking things
My father and his friends socialists to communist all of them disliked the death tax. Sorry you all havnt heard the term till recently. It was a much bigger issue for the deepee generation
New Ok.
New Waddaya 'spect in a place where Cholmondeley is pronounced
'Chumley'? (And That.. is the Toffs talkin)
..further down the ladder -
New we had "glagow" eddie burns, frank the hunky
the strine and a few assorted others (including undercovers during the strikes no doubt)
New so is the fair tax
New darn it box...I was saving that one.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New Poison pills don't count
Your bullshit "one time assessment" would never pass and you know it. See Box's reply for an example of what real proposals would look like. I think this reply is ample proof that you're more interested in scoring rhetorical points than discussing real alternatives.
--

Drew
New Inventing my position doesn't either
you have invented an argument/position for me that you want me to counter and now appear to be upset that I'm not doing it to your liking.

Interesting tactic.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New Try speaking clearly then
Don't tell me what you oppose. Tell me what you support. Your only answer to that so far was the one-time 25% assessment on wealth. Have you said something else that I missed?
--

Drew
New You're still asking me
to oppose or support a position that YOU INVENTED FOR ME.

Get over yourself already.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New No, I'm asking you to TAKE a position
What is it? What do you support? Is there anything other than "no taxes"? If you accept the premise that taxes will be levied, what is your position on how they should be levied?
--

Drew
New Stated above
in whatever fashion impacts ME the least.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New severl ways to even a playing field
needs based social security with high thresholds, say the magic $250k
everyone pays the ssi tax on all earned income
tax all income as earned
nudge up the medicaid tax a few points to pay for healthcare basic
a tax holiday to repatriate funds so future revenues on those funds can be taxed
3% federal sales tax to capture funds from the black market and the non working poor
that way everyone pays taxes, therefore everyone will look at a budget with a hairy eyeball and the "whats in it for me" crowd gets a little smaller
New dont think nother gets that
New I'd also be interested in Beep's take.
Bookselling on the web is a complicated issue because it's worldwide. The answer you get will depend on the assumptions you make.

But in the context of the USA, it's a reasonable question since, as I think is inescapable, sales taxes are eventually going to apply to Internet sales. What would happen to Internet sales as opposed to local sales? If booksellers suddenly had to apply a $2 fee for book sales, I think it would be handled much the same way as all of the various taxes on phone service. There's a separate line item for them.

So, instead of $9.95 for your new favorite author's book from Amazon and free shipping, you'd pay $11.95 on the day that tax takes effect. Would Amazon feel they needed to eat the tax? Possibly not, unless they saw a drop in sales, or unless they felt they could get good press by absorbing the cost temporarily. But it's hard to know.

But, if you're like me, you don't look at your monthly phone bill and say, gee that local tax really burns me up. "You say, !%*##%! I'm going to cancel this if the price keeps going up!!!" It's the total cost that matters.

As Drew says, prices are usually based on supply and demand - not costs. http://www.thetrutha...iscounts-exposed/ Of course, in the long run, income (revenue) has to exceed costs, so there is a feedback loop in place. But Bill Customer doesn't care if it costs Amazon $12 to sell him a book if he can buy it for $10 from Powell's.

So how would it end up? It's hard to say. I think that in the long run the $2 would be added to customer's total cost. But, and it's a big but, if total sales revenue drops then companies will be forced to reduce their costs or become more efficient to make their customers see the value in making the purchase.

And in the real world, if it's only a US tax, then one could imagine that sales by Canadian and Mexican bookstores (or foreign affiliates of US bookstores) might see substantial increases.

Ultimately, the market will decide - not the booksellers. Assuming there isn't a cabal of booksellers, and assuming the tax is applied equally and can't be gamed....

So, the common view that "the corporation doesn't pay the tax, the customer does" is far too simplistic. It depends on a whole slew of factors.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.
New For Pete's sake...how hard is it?
at the end of the day, the consumer pays for everything. It really is that simple.

If you want to complicate it and say "company x cuts costs so they don't have to pass it on"...company x has just fired 100 people..those 100 people are consumers. They might not be customers of company x...but they are consumers.

After peeling back several layers of complication, the beginning and end is the consumer.

Sure, in your example, the US taxpayer may not bear the entire burden of a "global tax"...but at its root, with no consumers...there is no Amazon, no GE, no Exxon, no ATT, no nothing.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New Let's play Reductio ad absurdum
Business taxes are bad because they take money from consumers.

Therefore, we should eliminate all business taxes.

No corporate income taxes, no FICA contributions, no local taxes... Behold! Business prices drop and consumers get the benefit! Amazon sees sales rise!

But wait.

Revenue to national governments drop unless tax rates rise for individuals. But that's not politically popular, even though it would be "revenue neutral" according to the economists. Because the locality can't afford a police force anymore, Amazon has to hire its own security force. Roads fall into disrepair because states don't have the funds for road improvements. Amazon can't deliver packages in a timely way, so their sales fall.

Since the court system has collapsed due to lack of revenue, Amazon employees no longer have to worry about prosecution by the state, so they take what they want. The Amazon Police can't stop them, because they are understaffed and some of them are also in cahoots with the looters.

Net result - Bad.

Without any discussion of what Bill's $2/book tax would be used for, it's a senseless exercise. Government doesn't usually collect taxes to have the money sit in a vault.

How long did your phone bill stay below what it was in 2006 when 26 U.S.C. § 4251 was repealed? http://en.wikipedia....ephone_excise_tax

If corporate taxes are always paid by consumers, then corporate tax rate reductions are always passed on to consumers, right?

I don't think so. Things are more complicated than that.

As I mentioned earlier, and as Krugman pointed out, it's much more efficient for the public to pay for a public good than for the private sector. Public goods are paid for with taxes.

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New And taxes are paid by consumers.
duh.

Efficiency doesn't enter into that equation.

You seem to be arguing about which way the taxes are taken from you is more appealing.

In the end...it still comes from you. Until you get that, you're lost.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New See my other post
WE DO GET THAT!

Yes, we do understand that taxes come from us.

Yes, we are arguing about which way of taking those taxes is more appealing.

And "more appealing" means that it comes from a more equitable distribution of "us".
--

Drew
New Thank you. You're much clearer than me.
New Just found this today
As Drew says, prices are usually based on supply and demand - not costs.

It's not me saying it. It was Drucker in 1993:
Most American and practically all European companies arrive at their prices by adding up costs and putting a profit margin on top. And then, as soon as they have introduced the product, they have to cut the price, redesign it at enormous expense, take losses and often drop a perfectly good product because it is priced incorrectly. Their argument? 'We have to recover our costs and make a profit.'

This is true, but irrelevant. Customers do not see it as their job to ensure a profit for manufacturers. The only sound way to price is to start out with what the market is willing to pay - and thus, it must be assumed, what the competition will charge - and design to that price specification.

Cost-driven pricing is the reason there is no American consumer electronics industry any more. If Toyota and Nissan succeed in pushing the German luxury car makers out of the US market it will be a result of their using price-led costing.

Starting out with price and then whittling down costs is more work initially. But in the end it is much less work than to start out wrong and then spend loss-making years bringing costs into line.

http://www.independe...sins-1501842.html

You don't get to "pass on" increased costs to your customers. The price they are willing to pay is not based on your costs.
--

Drew
New Problem with this
it assumes that the costs are not incurred equally across suppliers creating competitive advantage.

Taxes don't work that way. All suppliers are assessed equally.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New That reminds me....
I heard the argument phrased a little differently long ago.

Q: What's the most important thing for a business to have?
A: A customer.

Someone has to be willing to give you their money in exchange for what you give them or do for them. You can have a great idea, great people, great technology, great advertising, the lowest costs, and be head and shoulders above the competition in every way. But if you don't have any idea of who your customer is, you're dead.

In that sense, Drucker is too glib. Apple isn't the cheapest when it comes to computers and phones and music players or music stores. But it knows its customers' desires very well (much of the time). Good companies have ways of increasing demand.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Drucker is only applicable to commodities
If your product is a commodity, then what he says about cost-based pricing vs. price-led costing is true.

If your product is not a commodity, then you don't have competitors and most of the rules of markets don't apply. Yes, see Apple.
--

Drew
New It would suggest that that 40% ... making *20%* of the gross
are likely sharing a %-of-the-Pie obscenely-below their cost of basic-living (and doing so without a 'raise' for the last n-years.)
Meanwhile ... ... the Upper-Class income annual rates (not Net Worth! that's an even More obscene litmus for the Vulture in Vulture-Capitalism) -- have been rising exponentially.

Would you consider that broken too? Oh Yes.
Unless a one Likes the prospect of mobs/torches: were this *exponential* trend-line to continue == in the face of [present and expected Conditions.]

And: the Las Vegas Rulez employed by these high rollers? That which demonstrated the corruption-level which permitted these Outrageous ROIs/Gambles pure & simple:
Manifestly these games' rulez Were Not made by any 'Deciders' making less than $Ms (and $Bs) per annum.

Mobs/torches have coalesced for far less palpable theft of a nation's resources.

But then.. What? Me Worry?
(I know Your fav slogan, I think)

Build me a 'Market' *I* can 'correct', but if I break it, well.. My philosophy was OK; it's these 40% low-paid idiots with-3-shit-jobs whose incompetence spoiled it for me, so Let's Just Share the Burden of rebuilding it the way I Like it.

..or something ~~ in theoretical-speak, where no real bodies get maimed.

Eat the Rich (naww.. too much cholesterol.)






The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-- H.L. Mencken
New "Absolute" - well that's a risky bet.
http://www.ssa.gov/O...A/cbb.html#Series

Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program limits the amount of earnings subject to taxation for a given year. The same annual limit also applies when those earnings are used in a benefit computation. This limit generally increases each year with increases in the national average wage index. We call this annual limit the contribution and benefit base. For earnings in 2009, this base is $106,800.

The OASDI tax rate for wages paid in 2009 is set by statute at 6.2 percent for employees and employers, each. Thus, an individual with wages equal to or larger than $106,800 would contribute $6,621.60 to the OASDI program in 2009, and his or her employer would contribute the same amount. The OASDI tax rate for self-employment income in 2009 is 12.4 percent.


I guess if Obama doesn't freeze the OASDI then you'll win your bet, eh? Unless one thinks that wages won't go up, which is possible I guess, given the state of the economy... :-(

Cheers,
Scott.
New only in america
once you start making more dough you dont have to pay a 12.4% tax that minimum wage earners have to pay until death or retirement, thats equitable that is
New There was a certain logic to it, at one time.
It was intended to be insurance, and there were many more people contributing than collecting benefits. Now, it's a much bigger program and fewer are contributing per beneficiary, so the income limits should be raised (or completely removed) while adjusting the rates as appropriate.

I dunno how other countries handle taxation for social insurance.

Cheers,
Scott.
     Steve Benen on the Republican budget proposal. - (Another Scott) - (87)
         Take away deductions and loopholes - (beepster) - (86)
             That's as likely as their proposed cuts and spending freeze. - (Another Scott) - (85)
                 Um... - (beepster) - (84)
                     You're doing it again... - (Another Scott) - (83)
                         Really, I should read the memo then.. - (beepster) - (80)
                             I keep hearing people say that - (drook)
                             In addition to Drew's comments, here are some more... - (Another Scott) - (78)
                                 Excuse me, but where.. - (beepster) - (77)
                                     You're just using many of their talking points. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                         I take it you dont smoke - (boxley) - (1)
                                             Nope. - (Another Scott)
                                     Are we talking absolute, or percentage? Inflation adjusted? - (drook) - (73)
                                         what percentage of your working life - (boxley) - (1)
                                             On quitting smoking. - (Another Scott)
                                         Absolute. - (beepster) - (70)
                                             if we raise taxes on booksellers on the web - (boxley) - (65)
                                                 Wouldn't affect it much - (drook) - (54)
                                                     thank you for proving my point - (boxley) - (53)
                                                         It's a pointless one - (drook) - (52)
                                                             ???? - (beepster) - (50)
                                                                 Evidence, please. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                                                     The cig tax - (beepster) - (2)
                                                                         I've already addressed that. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                             Wait for the next one. - (beepster)
                                                                 Put up or shut up - (drook) - (45)
                                                                     You are on crack, arent' you. - (beepster) - (43)
                                                                         You're putting up a proposition about taxes. - (Another Scott) - (36)
                                                                             cap and trade will get everyone -NT - (boxley) - (35)
                                                                                 It's supposed to be impact neutral to family budgets. - (Another Scott) - (33)
                                                                                     Yep...and the government has never lied to you, have they? - (beepster) - (31)
                                                                                         So you oppose this. What do you support? -NT - (drook) - (30)
                                                                                             Once again - (beepster) - (29)
                                                                                                 read obamas lips, he is lying like every other pol -NT - (boxley) - (2)
                                                                                                     don't tell scott that - (beepster) - (1)
                                                                                                         naw, he is desparate to believe in the dream - (boxley)
                                                                                                 Specifics would be nice. - (Another Scott)
                                                                                                 Couple reminders - (drook) - (24)
                                                                                                     Reminders of what, exactly? - (beepster) - (23)
                                                                                                         A "bill of attainder" is unconstitutional. HTH. -NT - (Another Scott) - (5)
                                                                                                             tell that to the congress re: aig bonus taxes :-) -NT - (boxley) - (4)
                                                                                                                 Notice that talk of that died down in the Senate. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                                                                                                     Key difference - (beepster) - (2)
                                                                                                                         Back up. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                                                                             read back - (beepster)
                                                                                                         Wasn't my intention to focus on corporate taxes - (drook) - (16)
                                                                                                             what is this recently BS? - (boxley) - (15)
                                                                                                                 The inheritance tax doesn't do that - (drook) - (14)
                                                                                                                     so the state only seizes 45% difference in degree only - (boxley) - (13)
                                                                                                                         So 0.5% would *also* difference in degree only? - (drook) - (12)
                                                                                                                             so one only rents money from the state? - (boxley) - (11)
                                                                                                                                 I'll take a page from Beep's playbook for this one - (drook) - (10)
                                                                                                                                     :-) you said complaining about said tax was recent - (boxley) - (9)
                                                                                                                                         bing bing bing -NT - (beepster)
                                                                                                                                         No, I said calling it a "death tax" was recent - (drook) - (7)
                                                                                                                                             Exactly. -NT - (Ashton)
                                                                                                                                             sure it is - (boxley) - (5)
                                                                                                                                                 Don't be intentionally dense. It's unbecoming. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                                                                                                                     I have heard the term death tax since I was a kid - (boxley) - (3)
                                                                                                                                                         Ok. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                                                                                                                         Waddaya 'spect in a place where Cholmondeley is pronounced - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                                                                                                                             we had "glagow" eddie burns, frank the hunky - (boxley)
                                                                                     so is the fair tax -NT - (boxley)
                                                                                 darn it box...I was saving that one. -NT - (beepster)
                                                                         Poison pills don't count - (drook) - (5)
                                                                             Inventing my position doesn't either - (beepster) - (4)
                                                                                 Try speaking clearly then - (drook) - (3)
                                                                                     You're still asking me - (beepster) - (2)
                                                                                         No, I'm asking you to TAKE a position - (drook) - (1)
                                                                                             Stated above - (beepster)
                                                                     severl ways to even a playing field - (boxley)
                                                             dont think nother gets that -NT - (boxley)
                                                 I'd also be interested in Beep's take. - (Another Scott) - (9)
                                                     For Pete's sake...how hard is it? - (beepster) - (4)
                                                         Let's play Reductio ad absurdum - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                                             And taxes are paid by consumers. - (beepster) - (2)
                                                                 See my other post - (drook) - (1)
                                                                     Thank you. You're much clearer than me. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                     Just found this today - (drook) - (3)
                                                         Problem with this - (beepster)
                                                         That reminds me.... - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                             Drucker is only applicable to commodities - (drook)
                                             It would suggest that that 40% ... making *20%* of the gross - (Ashton)
                                             "Absolute" - well that's a risky bet. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                 only in america - (boxley) - (1)
                                                     There was a certain logic to it, at one time. - (Another Scott)
                         since the expeditures under discussion is about to pass gdp - (boxley) - (1)
                             Most of that $xxT is guarantees. - (Another Scott)

Accountancy is more strict in its rejection of divine intervention than science is.
237 ms