dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (03/01/85)
In article <683@whuxlm.UUCP> mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Mike Gray) writes: ||By the way, there's been a lot of criticism of corporate tax rates ||in this group. What good does taxing corporations do? They pay ||their taxes out of income, you know, which comes from the consumers ||who buy their products. Individuals pay all the taxes in the end. It's not that simple. "Corporations" include many businesses which might or might not be incorporated - small businesses. If you don't tax at the corporate level, you provide a large deferral incentive to small businesses to incorporate to save tax. Less tax is collected and unnecessary incorporations themselves cause wastage. Dave Sherman -- {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs hcr}!lsuc!dave {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsri!lsuc!dave
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (03/05/85)
> By the way, there's been a lot of criticism of corporate tax rates > in this group. What good does taxing corporations do? They pay > their taxes out of income, you know, which comes from the consumers > who buy their products. Individuals pay all the taxes in the end. > Not quite so. Lets say that a coporation from a foreign country comes here and mines silver. They then sell some of the silver to fund the operation and take the rest back to their home land as 'profit'. They are a socialist country and these funds go into the national account. Should they not pay a tax for the privilege of taking our natural resource for their own use? In this case a foreign government is the tax payer. This argument can be generalized in several ways. The first is to say that the socialist government is in fact a set of stock holders. In that case, the 'individuals' paying the tax are not citizens of our country. The next is to say that yes, the stock holders can be anywhere in the world, even here. This still shows the tax comming from a (supposedly) more powerful group for the right to exploit the national heratage or minerals. The final generalization is to say that it is not silver, but instead is a resource of some other kind. Beach front property in California, wharehouse space in New York. Still, you are taxing the entity (company == stockholders) for the use of their share of public resources and facilities (police, fire, dirtying the water and air) etc. At this point you can see why many third world countries do not greet the corporate world with open arms. In we come to monopolize the sources of wealth and export the gain to our own shores. (In some of their eyes...) While we talk of making jobs and building industry. In an international economy there is a need for corporate taxation. Even within our own borders, tax on coporations can communicate to them the true costs to society of their actions. (You make the polution, you pay to clean it up and figure the cost into your profit equations...) E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems Computo ergo sum The opinions expressed by me are not representative of those of any other person - natural, unnatural, or fictional - and only marginally reflect my opinions as strained by the language.
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (03/06/85)
> By the way, there's been a lot of criticism of corporate tax rates > in this group. What good does taxing corporations do? They pay > their taxes out of income, you know, which comes from the consumers > who buy their products. Individuals pay all the taxes in the end. While the above statement is absolutely correct, I support abolishment of individual income tax in favor of business income tax. The reason? Businesses can afford to have tax lawyers go over their returns. Sure, they'll bill us individuals for it, but I think that there are far fewer businesses than individuals, so my share of the bill will be smaller than my bill for my own tax preparation. Another reason? The personal income tax laws in the U.S., at least, are a tar-pit. Once you have filed you must be around for the next seven years in case of an audit. And while you're around, you have to file tax returns, and... You can't legally just "chuck it all" and run off to Tahiti and be a beach bum, or whatever. -- Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug
geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) (03/11/85)
>> By the way, there's been a lot of criticism of corporate tax rates >> in this group. What good does taxing corporations do? They pay >> their taxes out of income, you know, which comes from the consumers >> who buy their products. Individuals pay all the taxes in the end. > >While the above statement is absolutely correct... Doesn't anybody study economics any more? A basic principle is that business do *not* necessarily pass their costs on to the consumer. Some businesses can pass on more than their costs. But most businesses, faced with a 5% cost increase, find themselves only able to raise prices 4% without losing money due to decreased demand. Believe me, as a businessman I *know*. -- Geoff Kuenning Unix Consultant (213) 545-4413 ...!ihnp4!trwrb!desint!geoff
ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond) (03/12/85)
> Doesn't anybody study economics any more? A basic principle is that > business do *not* necessarily pass their costs on to the consumer. Some > businesses can pass on more than their costs. But most businesses, faced > with a 5% cost increase, find themselves only able to raise prices 4% without > losing money due to decreased demand. Believe me, as a businessman I *know*. > -- Geoff Kuenning You mean, the immediate response can only be 4%, and the rest trickles through later. -- Norman Diamond UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet ARPA: ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa "Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."
stewart@ihldt.UUCP (R. J. Stewart) (03/14/85)
>>> What good does taxing corporations do? ... >>> Individuals pay all the taxes in the end. > Doesn't anybody study economics any more? A basic principle is that > business do *not* necessarily pass their costs on to the consumer. Some > businesses can pass on more than their costs. But most businesses, faced > with a 5% cost increase, find themselves only able to raise prices 4% without > losing money due to decreased demand. Believe me, as a businessman I *know*. I claim that individuals *do* bear the taxes in the end. Consider the ways a business can support a tax: 1) Raise prices 2) Lower quality 3) Lower wages 4) Reduce owners' profit (or dividends, if a corporation) 5) Become more efficient It seems to me that: - 1, 3, and 4 are clearly taxes on individuals, not businesses. - 2 is not substantially different from 1. To get the same product (that is, of the same quality), you have to pay more. - 5 is not a way out. The increase in efficiency could have been gained *without* the tax, so that one of the previous cases must apply. If I've missed something, let me know. I think this covers all the bases, though. Bob Stewart ihldt!stewart