Democrats Show Their Love for Taxes

That much has not changed. But like the cigarette tax, they either fail to see the unintended consequences or are too stupid to see them.

If they create another tax to "help" people based upon a specific action, then they must promote that action to continue to obtain the revenue.

So in this case, they must subsidize the oil companies during lean times. Now that will be a great campaign issue for the republicans!

JFC.

He is trying to pander to his core supporters, many who pay 0 individual taxes by the time they file. Why can't people see that the more corporate taxes go up, the cost is passed onto the people. Gas affects everything from food to manufactured goods. IMO they should be finding a way to bring corporate taxes to zero (I didn't say zero compensation or wages before I get blasted). The consumer pays for these all ready, so why get taxed twice (when you earn it, then when you spend it). The corporate tax rate is currently 35% (second highest in the world after Japan) and we wonder why people move their businesses overseas! Lower the tax and they will have one third the reasons more to hire new workers, invest in the company, and stay in the US. If they take it in profit then tax them. What don't voters understand?

If you lower business taxes it wont bring back or keep jobs in the U.S. The cost of raw materials and transportation will dictate where manufacturing jobs go. Technology centric jobs will go where the best educated people reside. Agriculture jobs dont move very far from the farmland.

Yes the Democrats will raise taxes, but nothing comes for free. Unless you are amongst the wealthiest you have and will further suffer as the national debt gets larger and the value of the dollar sinks further. The fact is if you wish to have access to good schools, decent roads, clean air to breathe, clean beaches to swim at, decent health care, etc. somebody has to pay for it.

If you give big business more tax breaks or less regulation you will get less back than the price of that tax cut or regulation. They have been given the benefit of less regulation over the past 30 years and what they have accomplished is to castrate unions, bring about the concept of a multi income family to sustain the same standard of living,pass on increasing amounts of healthcare costs to the worker and the list goes on.

Big business these days seem to be incapable of looking further than the current quarters bottom line. Why should they. It's just too easy to take investor dollars, drive a company into the ground, take a multimillion dollar golden parachute and fly off to your private island in the Caymens. I guess the auto industry expected the war to be over and the iraqi government to hand over the oil leases to big oil by now. Otherwise they would have been prepared for the current energy situation. Instead the taxpaper will probably have to bail out the auto industry while the Japanese automakers clean up because they were prepared.

So the GOP can try to buy the votes of those who if they truly understood economics would never vote for them, and continue to bring our economy to the brink of failure. I love how they now say we don't want to go back to those lousy times of the 60's and 70's. I guess that is meant to buy the votes of those who don't know how good things were then. Will just say it was Vietnam and I was a POW so it must have been bad. When I look back both of those decades had much better economies than today. Back then the average one income family could live in a bigger house than todays 2 or more income family. CEO's were not making 400 times what their average employee made. Most working folk didn't have to change jobs every few years , actually got a decent pension plan that the company didn't end up stealing, and had a decent health care plan that actually allowed you to get heath care because their was no copay that might make some medical procedure unaffordable.

So keep on believing that McCain won't raise taxes and make sure you read his lips.

That is the only part of your response I agree with. He probably will.

what? You don't believe that the democrats will raise taxes or if you wish to have access to good schools, decent roads, clean air to breathe, clean beaches to swim at, decent health care, etc. somebody has to pay for it? I mean those are obvious.

Anyone who does not believe that the cost of an item... any item…  does not have the producers tax liability factored into the price is a fool. I can't say it more plainly than that. So any tax increase will just raise the price of the product... passing the increase to the consumer, rich, poor or middle class (the ones Obama wants to “give” a tax break too).

Have you ever been abroad? In China I could (did) buy a bag of oranges for less than a dollar. A cab ride there cost $2 the same distance here would be $15 or $16. Of course that is an over simplification, as there are other factors in play as well. If the Chinese raised their corporate taxes to 35% people would starve, unless they were paid more (which is always slower to come). So who pays the (corporate) tax? The people do.

The Democrats are a clever bunch, I'll give them that. They create a poorer constituency by laying the hidden costs through taxes on the people, then say the costs for the average person are too high let’s raise minimum wage. This helps endear them to the working joes/janes and the elitists (like most of Hollywood) that want to give back to the little people or support socialist ideals of re-distribution of wealth.  So the cycle repeats, with one caved, the rest of the world does work at US speed, so costs are lower there. Any sane business that can, moves to the country with more favorable taxes, oh and worker wages too, they are also factored into the cost of every p4roduct. Ireland has an 11% corporate tax rate and last count 600+ US companies are there. Of course lower taxes would mean less money that the government seems to think can spend it better than the taxpayer. I’m quite sure some senator has a pork-barrel project for his state (and probably someone he knows personally) to spend your money on.

I think most people would agree salaries (and the minimum wage would not have to go up if people could pay 35% less on everything they buy from cars to carrots. The problem is that doesn’t get as many votes as a promise to have you earn more.

Sorry should have read "caveat", dang spell checker.

 

 

 

 

Your right, tax policy is income redistribution, But income distribution goes both ways and both extremes have arguable dire consequences. So you have to decide how far it can go in either direction before the consequences are detrimental or dire to the nations public as a whole. No the WPT will not solve the energy issue. It is just as much a gimmick as a gas tax holiday. Both parties are and will continue to say whatever they think will win them the election until Nov. So take your pick. Of one thing i'm sure. This country needs a new comprehensive Energy Policy or the economy will fail. So take your pick and choose wisely.
IMHO neither party has it all correct. I think the Dem ideas need to include nuclear energy in the equation but i also think the GOP ideas are overly protective of the oil and coal industries. The days of cheap energy are over. There is a cost to all solutions whether it be development cost,health issues, war, etc. Personally i would rather pay more for the investment necessary to provide adequate sources of "clean" energy than have people continue to send their kids off to fight for oil or have more of my friends die from leukemia and cancer. I am fortunate to have decided not to have kids, but for those of you who do think wisely because you will be leaving them big problems no matter how you vote. So u have have to decide which problems are worse or less likely to be solved in the future.

Unfortunately business taxes do not in any way correlate directly the price of goods. If you drop business taxes from 35% to Zero the consumer price of finished goods does not go down 35%. Taxes are on profits not the total cost of producing and transporting goods. Add the cost of raw materials where it applies, and since we are in a global economy you must factor in subsidies and other forms of government protection in all countries involved. Many many other factors are involved.

To think that wages would never have to go up is ludicrous. The fundamentals of supply and demand alone dictate that the price of a car or carrots will never be static. Not to mention the price of gasoline so that one can actually use that car. Once again many many other factors are involved.

So in all i would opine that most people do not agree with your statement.

So who gets the "profits"? The profits are distributed to the shareholders (as dividends) and/or the employees as bonuses, or maybe reinvested back into the company. Now I don't know about your portfolio but capital gains taxes are brutal even for the smallest investors (like me). Did it hurt the company? No I pay the capital gains taxes each year, whether the stock does well or not.

I was lucky enough to get a bonus this year; my jaw dropped when I saw how much was taxed. Did it affect the company? No.. me a middle-class taxpayer foot the bill.

If the company reinvests back into the company, that is probably the smart thing to do, and in many cases comes with tax breaks for them. It just isn't possible to do all the time for all companies, especially small ones.

When profits are distributed they ARE taxed at the highest rate, and as you can see the costs are passed on.

Taxes are calculated into the price of the finished product. The company that produces the raw materials pays its taxes and figures that into the cost of raw materials to the manufacturer. No company eats these costs; they might lower the dividends, not give bonuses, or put off expansion. The other alternative is to make the product cheaper, use less expensive materials, cut labor, etc. If you could give an example of any company that does not figure in taxes it pays as part of its operating costs (along with labor, utilities, etc.). Where is Brad when you need him, he could answer this in a second.

First, I never said wages should never go up. You are correct prices do fluctuate, But if everything were a third cheaper, your money would go further, limiting the need for any mandatory wage increase in the near future.

Here is a simple test, everyone that works has a gross pay and a net pay (gross is total income, net is what you take home AFTER taxes). So what do you spend? Hopefully you can put some away, but most people will spend what they take home (credit excluded), because they can't count what is not in their paycheck. Now put that into a business prospective, the company sells a product for a year without figuring taxes into the cost to manufacture. The end of the year arrives and they have a 35% tax liability. How long would this company stay in business? Now I'm not naive enough to think if the corporate tax went to zero all of the savings would be passed onto the consumer, but I do think they would lower the prices enough to be more competitive with imports from places with lower tax rates. Oh and in case you didn’t know companies are taxed on their gross (before the workers/bills get paid), just like you and I not just their profits.

Now Obama hasn’t stated clearly enough for me anyway whether or not his “profits” tax will be on gross income, or some hybrid on what is left after the bills are paid. That just means less for bonuses or dividends (for those that have shares). Either way doesn’t sound good for the long haul. Sure the gov will get some more cash initially (and they spend it so well). Until the company gets tired and moves overseas or goes under.

Most that would disagree with what I said are all ready mind-tricked into thinking the only way to do better is to earn more money, not by reducing costs. Some politician bank on this knowledge of human nature to win constituents, it is effective.

You can't be narrowminded about taxes. Everybody hates paying taxes but if the government isn't paying the bills then the debt sends the value of the dollar down the drain. It is great to say your going to lower taxes but if you don't lower government spending all you will do is further lower the value of the dollar. Jobs going offshore and relatively high business taxes are not the largest contributing factors to the current us economic stagnation. The problems have been the investment bubbles. Increased deregulation, lack of market oversight, and legislation written by corrupt lobbyists have caused the problem. If you don't believe me just go visit the feds website.

The market has gone through a tech bubble, then a housing bubble ,and we are now in a commodities bubble that is feeding on itself causing the dollar to sink further and raising energy prices faster then our economy can absorb it. So you can complain about how taxes are killing your bottom line but the fact is the bubbles and policies that created them are hurting peoples bottom line more because they are what has stiffled U.S. economic growth. Not jobs going overseas and not a relatively high business tax rate. You can totally wipe out business taxes but there are still wage imbalances and various other production costs that far outweigh the savings from reducing the current tax liability.

So complain all you want about taxes because the fact is if we don't take measures to at least slow down the rate at which the deficit is climbing you wont have much income to be taxed at any rate.

I personally would rather pay a larger percentage in taxes because there are very few investments in this environment at which you can make any money in the first place. Look at how much is going into commodities. All that is doing is making the economy weaker and weaker. Tax policy and market oversight NEED to be restructured so more investment starts to go back into long term business building investments and out of the commodities markets. Most small businesses in the U.S. that don't export can't make any money if the average consumer is using their entire wage for rent/mortgage food and and energy.


In any case here is the gist of the bill this post talks about:

The proposed Consumer-First Energy Act would create a 25 percent windfall profits tax on companies that don't invest in renewable fuels or electricity production. It also would zero out some $17 billion in tax breaks for the oil industry and use the revenue to help consumers by investing in an Energy Independence and Security Trust Fund. The bill aims to curb speculation by hiking up margin requirements for those investing in futures trades and banning traders from using offshore futures markets to evade regulation.

So there you go you have been lied to about exactly what this bill is all about. If you don't think the part about commodities market oversight and margin requirements affects the price of energy just go ask any Californian that lived through Enron's manipulation of of their electricity market. It is the same loophole that Enron used (and wrote by the way) that they are trying to close.

I did not have the time to pick apart word for word, only ideas. This taken as a whole I do not agree with. I do beleive that it has to be paid for, but like any household, we learn to budget. This year we repair the driveway, next year we paint the house. We do not have the money to do it all this year. So it is with government. They have more than enough money to do it all. Just not all at once. They have to learn how to prioritize and maximze efficiency. Raising taxes does none of it except promote waste, sloth, graft and inefficiency. Yes the democrats will raise taxes. They lie, we know that. No, it is not needed for any thing you list. It is only obvious what will happen, not what is needed.