BP to get $13B tax write-off for spill costs?

#26
#26
utgibbs said:
In a competitive market, of course they cannot.

In a cartel, perhaps.
Click to expand...

Wrong, again.

The only way your argument would apply is if there was monopoly pricing. For most industries in America, this is not the case; ergo, taxing all of them, will lead all of them to raise their prices to reflect the tax burden.

This is called "tax incidence".
 
#27
#27
therealUT said:
Wrong, again.

The only way your argument would apply is if there was monopoly pricing. For most industries in America, this is not the case; ergo, taxing all of them, will lead all of them to raise their prices to reflect the tax burden.

This is called "tax incidence".
Click to expand...

If supply is elastic and demand is inelastic.

That's just about the exact opposite of the real world outside the back door. When demand is elastic (Yes) and supply is inelastic (Yes, otherwise loss of market share), tax incidence means the producer bears the burden of tax increases. Which is exactly right. Tax rate, anyway, doesn't affect profits; it affects profitability.

Business is ALWAYS looking for the monopoly price. A well-run business is ALWAYS charging what they can regardless of tax rate, the weather outside, etc. Moreover, if they simply pass on the cost, why do they care?

(Do you think the inflation rate is going to be < 0 over the time period of the tax chart I provided?)

Wrongly wrong again, I'm afraid.
 
Last edited:
#29
#29
utgibbs said:
Simple, Transparent, and Progressive for the tax code.

Since corporations have all the legal rights of individuals (in this country) they should be taxed as individuals.

Having said that, in all likelihood, if we ever get our heads out of our azz and design a tax code in the spirit of Adam Smith, the corporate rate - as well as everyone else's - would probably go down.
Click to expand...

corps can't vote. That technically means that shouldn't be taxed at all.
 
#30
#30
NEOCON said:
corps can't vote. That technically means that shouldn't be taxed at all.
Click to expand...

Corporations have more impact on elections than any individual ever thought about having. So, in reality, that is easily overcome.
 
#31
#31
LawVol13 said:
Corporations have more impact on elections than any individual ever thought about having. So, in reality, that is easily overcome.
Click to expand...

yeah but a laws a law. This one gets overlloked because corps are the big bad wolf etc etc bs bs.
 
#32
#32
rjd970 said:
This.

All the write-offs and loopholes makes rubbish of this high corporate tax argument. Example in the OP is exhibit A.
Click to expand...

It serves as a barrier to entry to keep out the little guy. Big corporations have worldwide operations and can do transfer pricing to get better tax rates elsewhere. Meanwhile the little guy trying to compete with them is crippled with 35% income tax rate.

My friend just started a call floor in the Phillippines. No corporate income tax for first 8 years. Talk about stimulus.
 
Last edited:
#34
#34
#35
#35
utgibbs said:
NEOCON, NEOCON. Corporations have far more influence on our democracy (sic) than any voter.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, while corporations cannot vote, they can 'anonymously' (yeah, right!) donate unrestricted amounts of money to a campaign. Meaning, a corporation can pump a candidate of their choosing full of cash, thus, through this method, corporations show far more influence and power than voting may achieve!
 
#36
#36
Lost in gibbs argument is why corporations can pay minimal taxes and its because they move their operations to low tax countries. I.e lower the tax rate and revenues will go up and jobs won't be moved overseas because of the tax rate.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#37
#37
droski said:
Lost in gibbs argument is why corporations can pay minimal taxes and its because they move their operations to low tax countries. I.e lower the tax rate and revenues will go up and jobs won't be moved overseas because of the tax rate.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with my argument.

This is simply getting away with murder because one can. You once blamed someone for speculating wildly and taking risks, etc. But this is perfectly rational behavior when you know you will get bailed out for it.

The proliferation of "tax havens" and capital flight are new to the neoliberal era. They could easily be corrected.
 
#38
#38
utgibbs said:
NEOCON, NEOCON. Corporations have far more influence on our democracy (sic) than any voter.
Click to expand...

still a law though. you can try to prove the point all day but it's still a law. corps can't vote. they are not represented in the voting process and will not be counted or allowed to vote.

you can have your opinion but it's still a law.

I own 6 seperate corps now. None have yet to vote.
 
#39
#39
Volunteer_Kirby said:
Furthermore, while corporations cannot vote, they can 'anonymously' (yeah, right!) donate unrestricted amounts of money to a campaign. Meaning, a corporation can pump a candidate of their choosing full of cash, thus, through this method, corporations show far more influence and power than voting may achieve!
Click to expand...

still

a

law

but

over

looked
 
#41
#41
utvolpj said:
so one solution could possibly be to drop the rate to something like 25% and close most of the loopholes? Just a thought...
Click to expand...

thats part of it the rest is they get to go overseas and not pay people a decent wage so that still wouldn't bring them back
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#42
#42
utgibbs said:
NEOCON, NEOCON. Corporations have far more influence on our democracy (sic) than any voter.
Click to expand...

But voting blocks do have more influence than corps.

BTW, obama raised over 3/4 billion $ last election
cycle and expects a billion + $$ this time.

Much of that will come from multinational mega corps.


JammieWearingFool: Obama Rails Against Oil Subsidies, Gave ACORN $3 Billion in Stimulus

President Obama lashed out at oil companies — and the
tax breaks they get from the government — for a second
consecutive day on Thursday and again in Saturday's
address.

“Four billion dollars of your money are going to these
companies at a time when they’re making record profits
and you’re paying near record prices at the pump,” the
president said at a Nevada town hall. “It has to stop.”

Funny, but he didn't have such objections when the
criminal enterprise known as ACORN was given $3 billion
in his stimulus scam two years ago.
--------------------

...... and the controversial group could get up to
$8.5 billion more tax dollars despite being under
investigation for voter registration fraud in a
dozen states.
Click to expand...

Of course we know they won't be convicted of anything
as long as Eric Holder is Attorney General.

holder1.jpg
 
#43
#43
utgibbs said:
Has nothing to do with my argument.

This is simply getting away with murder because one can. You once blamed someone for speculating wildly and taking risks, etc. But this is perfectly rational behavior when you know you will get bailed out for it.

The proliferation of "tax havens" and capital flight are new to the neoliberal era. They could easily be corrected.
Click to expand...

I know we've gone round and round on this numerous times but I gotta ask again and confirm. Your belief is that if tax codes were raised to where the corporations were paying higher taxes on doing business, none of those additional taxes would be passed on to the consumer?
 
#44
#44
hohenfelsvol said:
I know we've gone round and round on this numerous times but I gotta ask again and confirm. Your belief is that if tax codes were raised to where the corporations were paying higher taxes on profits, none of those additional taxes would be passed on to the consumer?
Click to expand...

FYP.

In a free market where demand is elastic?

Absolutely not, absolutely cannot happen - unless, of course, said business wants to go out of business.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top