BeeR Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 So lemme get this straight...because the government charges a business a tax, and the business passes that tax along to its customers in the form of a fee/higher price, this correlates to the government taxing the end user (even though its up to the business as to whether they pass the cost along)? In effect, yes. (I'd love to see a list of companies that DON'T pass that cost along to the rest of their customers one way or the other......I suspect the list is extremely small) Understood...my example was more basic than that, though. Every company in existance pays various taxes of various sizes....and obviously, they price their item so they can pay those taxes, their fixed cost, and still have enough to make a profit. Why is this any different? Because they're taxing ALL customers to help out a small demographic group of others. It's a variation on the welfare theme (PS note I am not throwing a dagger at those evil stinkin liberals - both "sides" appear involved and IMO both suck anyway). Put it this way: if they started giving chunks of money to some charity you don't care for or agree with but taxed you (and everyone else) to recoup the costs, you're saying you'd be OK w/that? Also lol @ this bit about useful from a national defense angle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 In effect, yes. (I'd love to see a list of companies that DON'T pass that cost along to the rest of their customers one way or the other......I suspect the list is extremely small) I think any business with competition that isn't selling a must-buy staple would be on that list. You price your product for the people buying it, or you go out of business failing to sell it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 That's not true. The taxes could be paid by a reduction in the firms' profits. Yup. And who owns the firm? INDIVIDUALS, which means that THEY are paying for the taxes in reduced return on their investments. I know you both know this, and are probably fishing, but everyone else doesn't. ONLY INDIVIDUALS PAY TAXES - PERIOD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 If one is so opposed to a tax to assist poor people in obtaining cell phones for emergency use, then don't buy yourself a cell phone. You have choices. What's the big deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 And who owns the firm? INDIVIDUALS, which means that THEY are paying for the taxes in reduced return on their investments. I know you both know this, and are probably fishing, but everyone else doesn't. ONLY INDIVIDUALS PAY TAXES - PERIOD. And when individuals have less money to spend because of your theoretical "tax increase" they demand higher salaries, passing the "tax" on to their employers. -or- When individuals have less money to spend because of your theoretical "tax increase", retail must lower prices so people will buy products... passing the "tax" on to them. Your argument has come up before and makes no sense whatsoever, as if individuals are the absolute bottom of the totem pole and play no part in the economy at all. It's kinda silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 And when individuals have less money to spend because of your theoretical "tax increase" they demand higher salaries, passing the "tax" on to their employers. Which means the shareholders/owners make less money-or- When individuals have less money to spend because of your theoretical "tax increase", retail must lower prices so people will buy products... passing the "tax" on to them. Which means the shareholders/owners make less money Your argument has come up before and makes no sense whatsoever, as if individuals are the absolute bottom of the totem pole and play no part in the economy at all. It's kinda silly. Atomic, you truly don't understand economics at all. I'm not saying I understand it like wiegie does, but your suppositions above are ludicrous. And my argument make perfect sense, and wiegie and yo both know it. Only individuals pay taxes. That has nothing to do with whether they are at the bottom of some totem pole you pull outta your butt. At its essence, an economy is INDIVIDUALS trading goods and services, value for value. The individual need (and wants are the same as needs for economic purposes) and willingness to trade for it is the ONLY thing that matters. Without that, economies grind to a halt. You're way too shortsighted here. And Club, you're exactly right. That's why I wasn't really bitching, just making a different point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Atomic, you truly don't understand economics at all. I'm not saying I understand it like wiegie does, but your suppositions above are ludicrous. And my argument make perfect sense, and wiegie and yo both know it. No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 And who owns the firm? INDIVIDUALS, which means that THEY are paying for the taxes in reduced return on their investments. I know you both know this, and are probably fishing, but everyone else doesn't. ONLY INDIVIDUALS PAY TAXES - PERIOD. Hedge, pension, mutual funds, etc actually own the biggest chunks of most publicly traded companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Hedge, pension, mutual funds, etc actually own the biggest chunks of most publicly traded companies. And who owns those funds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 And who owns those funds? The consumers of course, because it's impossible for a business to pay taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 And who owns those funds? Fidelity? Prudential? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 And who owns the firm? INDIVIDUALS, which means that THEY are paying for the taxes in reduced return on their investments. I know you both know this, and are probably fishing, but everyone else doesn't. ONLY INDIVIDUALS PAY TAXES - PERIOD. If you look back at my response, you will see that it focused solely on your incorrect assertion that the only individuals who pay taxes are customers and workers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 If you look back at my response, you will see that it focused solely on your incorrect assertion that the only individuals who pay taxes are customers and workers. Ahhh I knew you knew better. Atomic is still an ig'nant moran though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Az does a much better job of changing the subject after making a faux paus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.