"What's the frequency, Kenneth?"
Posted on 08/09/2007 7:15:44 AM PDT by indcons
President Bush said yesterday that he is considering a fresh plan to cut tax rates for U.S. corporations to make them more competitive around the world, an initiative that could further inflame a battle with the Democratic Congress over spending and taxes and help define the remainder of his tenure.
Advisers presented Bush with a series of ideas to restructure corporate taxes, possibly eliminating narrowly targeted breaks to pay for a broader, across-the-board rate cut. In an interview with a small group of journalists afterward, Bush said he was "inclined" to send a corporate tax package to Congress, although he expressed uncertainty about its political viability.
The president's comments came as he tried to calm volatile stock and mortgage markets and reassure the country that the economy is fundamentally strong. Despite mounting concern over the downturn in the housing market, he dismissed proposals advanced by prominent Democrats to grant government-chartered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac more freedom to buy mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. And he ruled out any taxpayer bailout of lenders threatened by the subprime home-loan crisis.
In a 48-minute conversation on an array of economic issues, Bush also warned China not to start a trade war, blamed Congress for not doing more to shore up infrastructure such as the bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis last week, and pushed back against Democratic presidential candidates who are promising to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Large Oil Industry Tax Payments Undercut Case for Windfall Profits Tax
Have a nice day.
I didn't think corporations paid taxes on its gross revenues. If not, your hypothetical is off base.
None of those things compared to the damage done by Greenspan and W in that order. The economy actually went through a short recovery after 911. W is ignorant and arrogant when it comes to economics.
Wille Nelson, is that you?
Look, I have used the law and the facts to substantiate an arguement...but I am not going to get into a philosophical, esoteric, down with the MAN yelling match with you over who pays taxes. I have explained to you how the system “accurately” works, and either you dont understand or are “unwilling” to understand. But that’s okay, we’re on the same side, neither of us believes in high taxes for either corporations or individuals. Trust me...if I could only send a check to support the military instead of paying taxes...I would, but that wouldnt change the fact that corporations are US taxpayers...and yes.
The US Tax regime is not subtrafuge in actuality it’s probably the fairest system of taxation in the world...and, thank God, we dont have a VAT regime...now you may beleive that one mythically exists by twisting the facts, or making it convenient with unsubstantiated rhetoric, but knowing the Internal Revenue Code as I do...trust me..we dont have a VAT tax either explicitly or implicitly as you advocate.
FOR REAL VAT MISERY look at the UK’s Tax Regime.
But hey...you know...u r right...one way or another every individual pays taxes...whether those taxes are sales, property, state income, sin taxes, or federal income taxes but CORPORATIONS do too. To deny such is being intellectually dishonest.
Well, no! Actually they collected those funds from any combination of their shareholders, their customers, or their employees and forwarded them to the government.
Corporations pay “US Federal Income” taxes on NET “Taxable”INCOME, but my hypothetical takes into account regulated commidity prices for which a tax increase or decrease would not affect the price of the product sold to the end consumer. This is done to show how US corporations “do” pay taxes without the ability to pass on that cost to the end conumer.
(i.e. my tax rate has gone up but because of my industry segment I am unable to adjust my product pricing for that rate difference.)
You’ve used a little logical sleight of hand to try to make your point:
You say:
1 - PRICE is “regulated by the market”
2 - Tax rate can stay the same or change and price will continue to be “regulated by the market”
3 - Therefore, tax rate does not effect the price
(Somehow this is supposed to disprove the assertion “Corporations do not pay taxes, their customers do”)
All you have proven is that there is more than just the tax rate that effects market regulated prices.
The reality that you try to conceal is that the tax rate is a very significant part of the “regulated by the market” dynamic you refer to.
If the tax rate goes up, the market will adjust accordingly.
Now it may be true that a company may trim it’s fat to compensate (make less profit as opposed to “passing it on”) in the event of a higher tax rate... However, it is still true that whatever monies are used to pay corporate taxes are a direct percentage of the price paid by consumers.
And it is therefore true to say, “corporations do not pay taxes, their customers do.”
Your condescending post above was deceitfully misleading.
conumer=consumer...
Indeed we are and that is a GOOD thing! In fact, I think we are saying essentially the same thing in different ways.
I just happen to believe that the taxes people pay, ALL of them, ought to be transparent and EASY for them to discern.
"What's the frequency, Kenneth?"
Geee...so you cant really contridict the message as you suppose, so, you just attack the messenger by accusing me of being misleading and deceitful, wow...that’s nice of you.
No my example was not misleading, and no it’s not slight of hand. I qualified the post by saying it was a very general example.
If I was condescending then my apologies.
Hey, it’s your right to disagree...but that facts are still there and they’re on my side.
“OIL and GAS” prices are regulated by a market (a term I used loosely) but specifically OPEC, futures traders, yada yada, which tend to price O&G on a world demand/supply basis...As I explained in a prior post...one cannot pass on the rate difference as a cost to the consumer when the price of their product is determined external of their control. And one would be hard pressed to pass on cost in an industry segment that is under serious competitive price pressure.
Thanks.
With the problems experienced with Chinese goods recently, I doubt it would be a smart thing for China to start a trade war at this point.
Apparently, you have forgotten about the tax cuts Bush has already pushed through.
Just to reiterate...again, tone is hard to convey in a post, so, dont paint me as condescending.
O&G Pricing is also done external of the US tax rate...market pricing on “world” commodities are not affected by the up and downs for the US corporate tax rate, however, services...as I suggested, may be indeed adjust their market price (If one solely looks at the US Service Industry) by up and downs in the US corp. tax rate.
Doesn't refute a single word I said however.
He's always been a conservative on the issue of taxes.
I am just trying to help others in understanding the nature of our tax regime (something I have done for 12 years) and some one this thread are accusing me of being intentionally deceitful and misleading, while others just want to deny the facts away.
I apprecaite the salutations.
I refuted every single word of yours with my first post to you. Now I am just playing with you like a cat with a mouse.
“For all the bad press, GWBush has had a pretty darn good track record with his tax-cuts,”
Bullcrap. They should have been permanent from the get-go. ‘temporary’ tax cuts and am expanding federal budget are a terrible combination. We’ll pay the piper eventually.
“likewise with national security issues.”
Hello, our borders leak like sieves, and he wants it that way. Bush is giving millions to Pali terrorists, and training their ‘security forces.’ The ROE in Iraq are - tie your hands behind your back. What a joke.
“IIRC in the war against Bush, congress’ biggest victories to date have just been Social Security,”
You can’t reform something that was horribly inherently broken to begin with - it’s a ponzi scheme.
“the Dubai ports deal, and the immigration bill.”
Bush pushed 2 real stinkers and lost. This was a victory for you and I.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.