• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rich people prepare to pay more taxes

Do we feel sorry for rich people?

  • Yes, i feel sorry for rich people

    Votes: 3 7.5%
  • Hell no, let the rich pay their fair share

    Votes: 37 92.5%

  • Total voters
    40

BahamaBob

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 1, 2019
Messages
2,854
Reaction score
946
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Money is fungible. While I agree the average person didn't spend $1,500 per month, there is no doubt that healthcare is a lot more expensive than $452 per month. In 2019 the U.S. spent $3.8 trillion ($11,582 per person). In case you are wondering that is $1,241 per month per person over the age of 18, or about $1,500 per month per person over the age of 21, if those between 18 and 20 pay nothing. Or we could break it by worker and get $24,200 per US worker. At any rate, the economic sacrifices made per person for healthcare in the U.S. are crazy high.

I assure you that employers realize the cost of hiring a worker and when they are making decisions about hiring workers the amount that they contribute is factored into an employee's compensation. Employers don't look at the amount of money that you get on your paycheck, they look at the total cost of your employment to them. How can people be both erroneous in their assertion that tax increases all get passed to consumers and then pretend that healthcare costs don't get passed to employees. You figure if they were at least consistent they would have been right one of the two times, instead they are just conveniently wrong on both counts.
There you go again. First you lie and say health premiums are $1,500 a month now you are lying again. That $11,000 figure is only for people over 65. That is because that age bracket is the ones most likely to have costly health issues and require end of life care. By the way, most in that bracket are covered by Medicare and do not factor in insurance premium costs except for their supplemental insurance if the take it.

The only honest thing you have printed is that employers factor in benefit costs when hiring employees. That additional expense is also saved when employees are laid off. In addition, a company who hires no union employees with no benefit packages can afford to pay those employees a higher salary than the union employees and still save money.

Healthcare Costs & Spend: Rising by Age, Gender, and Race || RegisteredNursing.org
 

BahamaBob

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 1, 2019
Messages
2,854
Reaction score
946
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Austerity simply does not work... We need massive investment to Build New and Rebuild, in doing so we generate means that Americans can produce a high % of what we consume and if we are paid well, we consume well, and that translates into higher tax revenue by volume which helps to pay down debt.
Austerity leaves everything to decline and nothing to grow.... Austerity has never worked.
With Federal Investments, We have a Fed Chairman to help manage the cost of capital and we invest to promote means for economics that can function on all levels.

I think many people don't know the full history of Federal Investment, most companies people work for, pursue vigrously both federal contracts and federal aid by many means... we have to extend that into the average communities citizens lives.
We have need to do massive community renewals, in Rural, Country, Towns, Moderate Sized Cities and Major Metro's, We have massive infrastructure need, for all out Utilities services; we have sewer systems in some areas that are 100yrs old + and electrical grid work, that needs to transition from wooden poles to underground cables and those need to be buried in quality conduit and/or encased channels with strategic access points. We need to invest in Medical Students, and that has to translate into supporting by investment to help them set up "imaging and other testing centers" in Rural, Country, Towns, Moderate Sized Cities and Major Metro's.
Various Factories have to re-model their floor operations (We saw that happen with the auto industry), it has to happen within the food and meat processing industry.
Schools require upgrades to security feature with the right type of fencing and access security check point.

Fact is the Gold Owned by the United States is vastly larger than any nation... therefore, even though our currency is not backed by Gold, the holding of such vast volumes allows us room to create the debt necessary to build and rebuild without inflation dragging us down. It's been an "unspoken offset" since the days we came off the Gold Standards.
World's Gold Reserves - Top 7
1. United States - 8,133 tonnes - $373,430,444,426
2. Germany - 3,369 tonnes - $154,711,817,616
3. IMF - 2,814 tonnes - $129,198,164,458
4. Italy - 2,451 tonnes - $112,568,606,829
5. France - 2,436 tonnes - $111,843,187,142
6. Russia - 2,168 tonnes - $99,552,373,843
7. China - 1,885 tonnes - $86,568,279,703

How Governments Reduce the National Debt

quote
The Bottom Line
Many people believe that much of U.S. debt is owed to foreign countries like China and Japan. The truth is, most of it is owed to Social Security and pension funds. This means U.S. citizens, through their retirement money, own most of the national debt.

U.S. national debt is the sum of these two federal debt categories:
  • Public debt (held by other countries, the Federal Reserve, mutual funds, and other entities and individuals)
  • Intragovernmental holdings (held by Social Security, Military Retirement Fund, Medicare, and other retirement funds)
end quote

We need to remove the cap on Social Security Contribution, but still manage the payout, the wealthy must pay more, their wealth is derived from what people do.

America grew the fastest and strongest during time with Corporate Taxes were higher.

Corporate tax rates and economic growth since 1947
Are you actually stupid enough to think 373 billion dollars worth of gold covers 23 trillion dollars in Federal Debt?
 

SimpleTom

Active member
Joined
Oct 26, 2020
Messages
458
Reaction score
170
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
There you go again. First you lie and say health premiums are $1,500 a month now you are lying again.
I wasn't the one who claimed health premiums are $1,500 a month. In fact, I started out by saying that, "I agree the average person didn't spend $1,500 per month."

That $11,000 figure is only for people over 65. That is because that age bracket is the ones most likely to have costly health issues and require end of life care. By the way, most in that bracket are covered by Medicare and do not factor in insurance premium costs except for their supplemental insurance if the take it.
I am sorry if this is rude, but it should not be that hard for an adult participating in a discussion forum to have enough basic math skills to do some simple division. The U.S. spent $3.8 trillion on healthcare in 2019. There were 328.09 million people in America in 2019 (that is the average number by the way). 3,800,000,000,000/328,090,000 = 11,582. Practice some at home you can get it.

The only honest thing you have printed is that employers factor in benefit costs when hiring employees. That additional expense is also saved when employees are laid off. In addition, a company who hires no union employees with no benefit packages can afford to pay those employees a higher salary than the union employees and still save money.
First, see the math above. Next, I wrote that to counter what you wrote so... Cool.
If you had read your source above you would see that is out of pocket. Once again, money is fungible. It was paid by someone, do you really believe the only money that counts towards your contribution to healthcare costs are the money you spend out of pocket? It seems unlikely that you do because you just noted that my honesty above factored in employee costs as compensation costs. Are you now going to claim that paying Medicare taxes don't change your take-home pay?
 
Last edited:

BahamaBob

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 1, 2019
Messages
2,854
Reaction score
946
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Are you trying to look bad?
I wasn't the one who claimed health premiums are $1,500 a month. In fact, I started out by saying that, "I agree the average person didn't spend $1,500 per month."


Here is your quote from post 436.
"When you include the fact that the average American pays over $1500 a month for health care"
That is an unsubstantiated lie.
I am sorry if this is rude, but it should not be that hard for an adult participating in a discussion forum to have enough basic math skills to do some simple division. The U.S. spent $3.8 trillion on healthcare in 2019. There were 328.09 million people in America in 2019 (that is the average number by the way). 3,800,000,000,000/328,090,000 = 11,582. Practice some at home you can get it.

That is a BS number. That includes things like dental care, medical research, government costs, insurance administration costs, over the counter medicine, and it double dips in counting hospital and several other expenses covered costs along with insurance premiums.
If you had read your source above you would see that is out of pocket. Once again, money is fungible. It was paid by someone, do you really believe the only money
that counts towards your contribution to healthcare costs are the money you spend out of pocket? It seems unlikely that you do because you just noted that my honesty above factored in employee costs as compensation costs. Are you now going to claim that paying Medicare taxes don't change your take-home pay?

Again you lie it is not out of pocket. Here is a quote from the article I posted.
" By the time you reach 65 years old, average healthcare costs are $11.3K per person, per year in the United States. "
Here is another quote from the article.
" Healthcare costs are lowest from age 5 to 17 at just at $2,000 per year on average."
Because you are math challenged, 2,000 is much less than 11,000.

By the way money is not fungible. If it was your employer could pay you in chickens. In fact, try that out the next time you buy something. Tell them you are going to pay them in something of equal value.




Like Quote Reply
Report
 

SimpleTom

Active member
Joined
Oct 26, 2020
Messages
458
Reaction score
170
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Are you trying to look bad?
I wasn't the one who claimed health premiums are $1,500 a month. In fact, I started out by saying that, "I agree the average person didn't spend $1,500 per month."


Here is your quote from post 436.
"When you include the fact that the average American pays over $1500 a month for health care"
You actually take the cake. Did you notice THAT IS NOT ME? Seriously, do you need some sleep or is this just normal you?

Again you lie it is not out of pocket. Here is a quote from the article I posted.
" By the time you reach 65 years old, average healthcare costs are $11.3K per person, per year in the United States. "
Here is another quote from the article.
" Healthcare costs are lowest from age 5 to 17 at just at $2,000 per year on average."
Because you are math challenged, 2,000 is much less than 11,000.
From your source, "But the big unknown is healthcare expenses. It turns out as you age, your annual healthcare costs go up a lot and despite having insurance you may be on the hook for copays, deductibles, and all sorts of things that aren't actually covered."


Would you like more sources that prove you are wrong?

As for R&D how do you think R&D would happen if it wasn't paid for? Do you believe that everyone in R&D is suddenly going to stop wanting to get compensated?
As for Dental, it was 4.2% of the expenditure. If you would like me to correct my number to $11,096 per person I am OK with that.


By the way money is not fungible. If it was your employer could pay you in chickens. In fact, try that out the next time you buy something. Tell them you are going to pay them in something of equal value.
That is not what fungible means. Fungible means that every item is perfectly substitutable for another of that same item. In other words, if you loan a friend ten dollars, you will take any ten dollars as repayment. He doesn't have to go beg the gas station to give him the same exact bill with that exact serial number back. Any dollar has the same value as any other dollar. As we expand the fungibility of money we begin to understand that there is no difference between spending less money and having more money. If you are given the choice between your parents giving you $100 to pay for your car insurance or your parents paying your $100 car insurance, you don't care. You are in the exact same financial position whether you saved $100 by not having to pay your car insurance or by getting $100 extra to pay your car insurance.

This matters when we start talking about healthcare expenditures. Just because your employer pays some of the costs directly it doesn't mean you are not effected. Those costs get priced into labor and employment, as well as taxes, etc. and end up removing dollars from the compensation pool and/or take-home pay.
 
Last edited:

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
91,025
Reaction score
19,555
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Do we feel sorry for rich people? Since Joe and a democratic house and senate are sure to raise taxes that rich people pay.

trump cut taxes for the rich. A rich man making a million dollars a year saw $69,900 dollars in tax savings every year.
**** rich people... a millionaire that pays 60% taxes would still make $400,000 a year... far more than some working stiff that makes $100,000 but pays 10% taxes ending with $90,000 and that does not cover the vast poor that make $20,000 a year.

Rich people can **** off with their whining.... they don't deserve their shit... it was built on the backs of the working class from the beginning.
 

BahamaBob

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 1, 2019
Messages
2,854
Reaction score
946
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You actually take the cake. Did you notice THAT IS NOT ME? Seriously, do you need some sleep or is this just normal you?



From your source, "But the big unknown is healthcare expenses. It turns out as you age, your annual healthcare costs go up a lot and despite having insurance you may be on the hook for copays, deductibles, and all sorts of things that aren't actually covered."


Would you like more sources that prove you are wrong?

As for R&D how do you think R&D would happen if it wasn't paid for? Do you believe that everyone in R&D is suddenly going to stop wanting to get compensated?
As for Dental, it was 4.2% of the expenditure. If you would like me to correct my number to $11,096 per person I am OK with that.



That is not what fungible means. Fungible means that every item is perfectly substitutable for another of that same item. In other words, if you loan a friend ten dollars, you will take any ten dollars as repayment. He doesn't have to go beg the gas station to give him the same exact bill with that exact serial number back. Any dollar has the same value as any other dollar. As we expand the fungibility of money we begin to understand that there is no difference between spending less money and having more money. If you are given the choice between your parents giving you $100 to pay for your car insurance or your parents paying your $100 car insurance, you don't care. You are in the exact same financial position whether you saved $100 by not having to pay your car insurance or by getting $100 extra to pay your car insurance.

This matters when we start talking about healthcare expenditures. Just because your employer pays some of the costs directly it doesn't mean you are not effected. Those costs get priced into labor and employment, as well as taxes, etc. and end up removing dollars from the compensation pool and/or take-home pay.
I don't thing I will take financial advise from someone who thinks 373 billion dollars in gold will cover 23 trillion dollars in debt. Throwing out a bunch of irrelevant gibberish does not make you intelligent. It makes you childish.
 

eohrnberger

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
39,693
Reaction score
25,994
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
**** rich people... a millionaire that pays 60% taxes would still make $400,000 a year... far more than some working stiff that makes $100,000 but pays 10% taxes ending with $90,000 and that does not cover the vast poor that make $20,000 a year.

Rich people can **** off with their whining.... they don't deserve their shit... it was built on the backs of the working class from the beginning.
People who earn $20,000 a year employ how many others?

Allot of these people who you seem to be pissed off at are owner / operators of small businesses employing others, where a lot of their money is tied up supporting their businesses, and are already under serious stress from COVID-19, related absenteeism / quarantines, additional precautionary measures expenses, etc.
In the US that's around 50% of the jobs.
These are the same people you wish to impose these punitive taxation on?
How many more unemployed in the middle to lower bands of the economic spectrum do you want?

The PPP program may have had it's faults, stumbles, but in concept it was a pretty good idea.

One needs to make sure not to kill off the jobs Golden Goose. That's never a good idea.

Now. If you want to put these punitive taxations on so called 'Trust Fund Babies' like Ossoff, then I could be talked into it.
 

SimpleTom

Active member
Joined
Oct 26, 2020
Messages
458
Reaction score
170
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I don't thing I will take financial advise from someone who thinks 373 billion dollars in gold will cover 23 trillion dollars in debt. Throwing out a bunch of irrelevant gibberish does not make you intelligent. It makes you childish.
/sigh...

Calamity said, "When you include the fact that the average American pays over $1500 a month for health care (insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays} that often is not even very good while earning roughly $50k, your math falls apart." I am not Calamity despite you saying that I am and actually going back and actually checking and still not figuring it out.

RealityNow said some stuff about gold in post 446. I am not RealityNow.

See if you can spot the subtle differences here: (1) SimpleTom (2) RealityNow (3) Calamity. Can you tell the difference between 1, 2 and 3 there? Take all the time you need.

-----

I don't know how to respond to your childish thing because I am not sure if you are even talking to me and you damned sure don't know who you are talking to.
 
Last edited:

PIPEWRENCH

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2014
Messages
11,228
Reaction score
3,650
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Austerity simply does not work... We need massive investment to Build New and Rebuild, in doing so we generate means that Americans can produce a high % of what we consume and if we are paid well, we consume well, and that translates into higher tax revenue by volume which helps to pay down debt.
Austerity leaves everything to decline and nothing to grow.... Austerity has never worked.
With Federal Investments, We have a Fed Chairman to help manage the cost of capital and we invest to promote means for economics that can function on all levels.

I think many people don't know the full history of Federal Investment, most companies people work for, pursue vigrously both federal contracts and federal aid by many means... we have to extend that into the average communities citizens lives.
We have need to do massive community renewals, in Rural, Country, Towns, Moderate Sized Cities and Major Metro's, We have massive infrastructure need, for all out Utilities services; we have sewer systems in some areas that are 100yrs old + and electrical grid work, that needs to transition from wooden poles to underground cables and those need to be buried in quality conduit and/or encased channels with strategic access points. We need to invest in Medical Students, and that has to translate into supporting by investment to help them set up "imaging and other testing centers" in Rural, Country, Towns, Moderate Sized Cities and Major Metro's.
Various Factories have to re-model their floor operations (We saw that happen with the auto industry), it has to happen within the food and meat processing industry.
Schools require upgrades to security feature with the right type of fencing and access security check point.

Fact is the Gold Owned by the United States is vastly larger than any nation... therefore, even though our currency is not backed by Gold, the holding of such vast volumes allows us room to create the debt necessary to build and rebuild without inflation dragging us down. It's been an "unspoken offset" since the days we came off the Gold Standards.
World's Gold Reserves - Top 7
1. United States - 8,133 tonnes - $373,430,444,426
2. Germany - 3,369 tonnes - $154,711,817,616
3. IMF - 2,814 tonnes - $129,198,164,458
4. Italy - 2,451 tonnes - $112,568,606,829
5. France - 2,436 tonnes - $111,843,187,142
6. Russia - 2,168 tonnes - $99,552,373,843
7. China - 1,885 tonnes - $86,568,279,703

How Governments Reduce the National Debt

quote
The Bottom Line
Many people believe that much of U.S. debt is owed to foreign countries like China and Japan. The truth is, most of it is owed to Social Security and pension funds. This means U.S. citizens, through their retirement money, own most of the national debt.

U.S. national debt is the sum of these two federal debt categories:
  • Public debt (held by other countries, the Federal Reserve, mutual funds, and other entities and individuals)
  • Intragovernmental holdings (held by Social Security, Military Retirement Fund, Medicare, and other retirement funds)
end quote

We need to remove the cap on Social Security Contribution, but still manage the payout, the wealthy must pay more, their wealth is derived from what people do.

America grew the fastest and strongest during time with Corporate Taxes were higher.

Corporate tax rates and economic growth since 1947
The SS debt is the result of a system where you pay as you go. I paid in extra my whole life so there would be plenty of money when I retired. Unfortunately the money was not invest like every retirement plan that actually works. While retirement plans invest money we are told that if we had invested the surplus we had paid in we would have nothing now. Well when you take the money and put it in an account with a multi trillion dollar negative balance you end up with nothing but an IOU. So now the people working today not only have to pay our SS but all the money that was stolen from us for the past 45+ years. The problem is you just can't fix stupid.
 

Wayne Jr

bis vincit qui se vincit
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2018
Messages
5,563
Reaction score
1,266
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Just stop working, get on welfare, and let all the illegals coming here pay for it.
The rich don't pay taxes, they pass it on to the consumer.
 

SimpleTom

Active member
Joined
Oct 26, 2020
Messages
458
Reaction score
170
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
The rich don't pay taxes, they pass it on to the consumer.
How would you like me to counter this?

I have explained price elasticity of demand several times now. Would you like a youtube video? An economics textbook? Can I just refer you back to an earlier comment where I explained it? Just let me know.
 

RealityNow

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
6,051
Reaction score
1,503
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The article did not that Corporate Taxes was a lesser contributor than the many other form of Federal Revenue. I got that! The point in posting that is, that all factors matter. Greater or Lesser... because our system is based on "All Factors being involved". UBI can do many positive things, it changes the dynamics out the Federal Outlay, but provides people means to improve their lives, and improved life is an efficient resource saver on every level.
We could have UBI, except the matter is related to the history of America, which for 300+ yrs embraced slavery and declared black people as non person, and for 100+ yrs chose to seek and engage any and every means to disenfranchise black people, but equally so, it was built upon strategies to keep poor whites poor and working poor whites earning at less than a living wage standard; Confederacy Ideology was/is a Con Job on White People

This ensured a circular vile that promoted a malicious competitiveness, and chaos is always profitable for the wealthy to increase the monetary gap between themselves and the mass of The Poor.

Corporate Ideology in America has never given up on the slave and indenture model and its principles. We need a Paradigm Shift. Employees should not only be provide shares in any Publicly Traded Company as part of their pay compensation, but should have voice on the Board of Directors. this has to be structured property, where that voice has decision vote in corporate financial functions.

I was part of a company and we owned 51%, but did not have the voices on the Board, the company constructive went on a spending spree, and caused great debt that led to bankruptcy, they then allowed (illegally) for the Union to be changed, which eroded the ownership shares (no ownership position are to be changed in the middle of bankruptcy) however, they did, and proceeded to eventually delist the stock, when they came out of reorganization bankruptcy, the leadership awarded themselves 15% of the company! The employees go what equal 1% of what they had invested in their share ownership because State Street Bank, sold the share when they were practically worthless before they were delisted.
That should be a case study in how to restructure employees share ownership with protections against such things every happening again.

Now, back to Corporate Taxes... They should be Taxed and Taxed Heavily. It should also have a factoring related to how much foreign parts they use within their product production as well.
 

DopeyJoeIsSenile

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
25,644
Reaction score
6,124
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
LOL Investing in your business and creating jobs IS a tax shelter. That is all tax deductible. That is why higher taxes on high incomes encourages that kind of behavior. Lowering taxes make hoarding cash more attractive. Like you said it is not rocket science.
As usual....you are making it up as you go along.
 

DopeyJoeIsSenile

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
25,644
Reaction score
6,124
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There are two numbers to compare:
1) Tax revenues assuming no change in tax rates
2) Tax revenues after a cut in tax rates.

The fact that because of inflation, population growth and the normal economic growth that happens with or without the tax cuts revenue might grow over time is NOT evidence that the tax rates increase revenue. Claiming it is just reveals a pretty fundamental ignorance about the issue. Just see the CBO and JCT estimates of tax rate cuts or increases. Those people have more data than you can imagine, and have some of the most skilled economists using awesome tools and their predictions are clear, without regard to party in charge, and it's simply that math works.

If you're suggesting you know more than these experts, OK, I guess but I'll go with those who actually know what they're doing.
CBO is the last source I would trust. I stand behind my claim. If you understood the math behind economics and tax policy, you would get it.
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
48,675
Reaction score
19,968
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
CBO is the last source I would trust. I stand behind my claim. If you understood the math behind economics and tax policy, you would get it.
Yes, of course you don't trust CBO because they are experts, who understand the "math behind economics and tax policy" better than you or I, because they have access to data and the tools to evaluate those data you can only guess at. Why not rely on ignorant people or liars, who come to conclusions you prefer?
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
48,675
Reaction score
19,968
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The rich don't pay taxes, they pass it on to the consumer.
What you're talking about is tax incidence, and there's no evidence at all that "the rich" or corporations can simply pass through the cost of income taxes with higher prices. I'm sure they pass through some, and some are born by investors/owners, and some by employees. It depends on the company and industry. If it's a commodity business, their ability to pass through income taxes is close to zero. Too many sellers, globally, products often traded on commodity exchanges, to allow some producers in one country to unilaterally raise prices to compensate for income taxes. Even in the U.S. if there are 10 sellers, odds are high there will be 10 different effective tax rates, so 10 different amounts of taxes TO pass through. Well, if one of them faces rates of 0% (because of losses in another subsidiary), then it can keep prices low, gain market share, and it's win/win for them.

If a luxury good, unique, few or only one seller, more ability. But even those companies if they can just raise prices because they'd like to make more money - why not do it with or without tax increases?

Etc. Bottom line is the idea that the rich can simply raise prices to offset income taxes is false as a general proposition. It's why they spend so much money and effort buying lower tax rates, or fighting higher tax rates.
 

DopeyJoeIsSenile

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
25,644
Reaction score
6,124
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What you're talking about is tax incidence, and there's no evidence at all that "the rich" or corporations can simply pass through the cost of income taxes with higher prices. I'm sure they pass through some, and some are born by investors/owners, and some by employees. It depends on the company and industry. If it's a commodity business, their ability to pass through income taxes is close to zero. Too many sellers, globally, products often traded on commodity exchanges, to allow some producers in one country to unilaterally raise prices to compensate for income taxes. Even in the U.S. if there are 10 sellers, odds are high there will be 10 different effective tax rates, so 10 different amounts of taxes TO pass through. Well, if one of them faces rates of 0% (because of losses in another subsidiary), then it can keep prices low, gain market share, and it's win/win for them.

If a luxury good, unique, few or only one seller, more ability. But even those companies if they can just raise prices because they'd like to make more money - why not do it with or without tax increases?

Etc. Bottom line is the idea that the rich can simply raise prices to offset income taxes is false as a general proposition. It's why they spend so much money and effort buying lower tax rates, or fighting higher tax rates.
You are attempting to baffle me with bullshit, likely cut and pasted to a point. My point is that increased wealth comes from investing a portion of your wealth or in the case of corporations, a portion of profits. Raising taxes translates to less available wealth or profits to invest. The money is instead directed towards legal tax shelters, arranged by hired or employed tax accountants. Programs like Turbotax to a point do the same for you and I, if you file long form.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
46,375
Reaction score
16,028
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
You are attempting to baffle me with bullshit, likely cut and pasted to a point. My point is that increased wealth comes from investing a portion of your wealth or in the case of corporations, a portion of profits. Raising taxes translates to less available wealth or profits to invest. The money is instead directed towards legal tax shelters, arranged by hired or employed tax accountants. Programs like Turbotax to a point do the same for you and I, if you file long form.
Thanks to the extremely low tax rates on the rich he world is awash with capital searching for returns. Also with interest rates so low it is easy for companies to borrow money they need. Raising top rates in high incomes will not limit investments.
Tax shelters do not shield income from taxes permanently. You still pay when you take the money out to use,

While tax shelters provide a way to legally avoid taxes, they can also be used to evade taxes. Tax minimization (also referred to as tax avoidance) is a perfectly legal way to minimize taxable income and lower taxes payable. Do not confuse this with tax evasion, the illegal avoidance of taxes through misrepresentation or similar means.7
If an investment is made for the sole purpose of avoiding or evading taxes, you could be forced to pay additional taxes and penalties. For example, if an independent contractor or subcontractor purposely transfers all or a portion of her earned income to another individual who is subject to lower tax rates, the contractor will be evading taxes.8 Also, companies who take advantage of favorable tax rates in certain countries by creating offshore companies for the purpose of evading taxes, will be heavily penalized by the IRS which treats such manipulative strategies as fraudulent activity subject to steep fees, criminal prosecution, and prison sentence.9 (For related reading, see "Why Delaware Is Considered a Tax Shelter")


https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/taxshelter.asp
 

BahamaBob

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 1, 2019
Messages
2,854
Reaction score
946
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
/sigh...

Calamity said, "When you include the fact that the average American pays over $1500 a month for health care (insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays} that often is not even very good while earning roughly $50k, your math falls apart." I am not Calamity despite you saying that I am and actually going back and actually checking and still not figuring it out.

RealityNow said some stuff about gold in post 446. I am not RealityNow.

See if you can spot the subtle differences here: (1) SimpleTom (2) RealityNow (3) Calamity. Can you tell the difference between 1, 2 and 3 there? Take all the time you need.

-----

I don't know how to respond to your childish thing because I am not sure if you are even talking to me and you damned sure don't know who you are talking to.
First you say they pay $11,000 a year which is BS. Now you say they pay $1.500 a month which is $18,000 a year. You can't even keep your lies straight. In your next post you will probably up it to 25K.

When you include something from someone else as part of your argument, you own it. When your lie is exposed don't try to snake out of it.
 

BahamaBob

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 1, 2019
Messages
2,854
Reaction score
946
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
How would you like me to counter this?

I have explained price elasticity of demand several times now. Would you like a youtube video? An economics textbook? Can I just refer you back to an earlier comment where I explained it? Just let me know.
Tell us how much in taxes Warren Buffett pays.
 
Top Bottom