Taxes are on profits not the total cost of producing and transporting goods.
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.
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 other factors are involved. So in all i would opine that most people do not agree with your statement.
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.