When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
If five competitors all had their taxes drop by the same amount you would likely see a combination of things. You would likely see an increase in spending on research and design, benefits and wages to increase employee retention if that is a problem or upgrade employee quality, reinvestment in improved production for improved efficiency or quality, or immediately dropping the price to gain a sales volume advantage over their competitors.
Except didn't we just see this happen a few years ago? And nearly every company used it for stock buy backs.
Thankyou! That works as far as explanations go. If 5 competitors had their taxes drop, then at that point it would effectively be a game of cat and mouse on who would pocket, invest, or throwaway.
dlea - "slower price increases." That one hit home xD.
six - going to agree with you on the hardest aspect for the masses to realize is the effect of actual competition. Stagnation is risky (granted, there are definitely those that stagnate - thinking of intel/amd), and really for big picture bits, extra money is (or should be) utilized to find a way to make more money (QOL for employee retention, R&D, tooling, etc). Also, I've never had an iphone used market android phones for me. Let the masses buy brand new...always.
Revisiting this real quick. I like how you put it as far as "if we were to increase taxes on something, it should be the individual not corporations." My question is, if tax breaks happen - say, either do a tax cut on income taxes vs corporate taxes... does it still follow? Upon a tax cut, would corporations then reduce prices or would they pocket the difference? I'd argue the latter, but at the same time that wouldn't mean we're in disagreement. I think it's that people don't want to separate the two...e.g. "since a corporation would just pocket the difference if a tax cut happened to them... we should instead increase their taxes instead of ours" - and that's incorrect. Am I getting this right?
We could delve into all sorts of minutae, speculation, points and counter-points, and that would be missing the big picture. The fundamental underlying point is this:
Corporate taxation is more complex, less efficient, and much more highly obfuscated than individual taxation.
When the government taxes an individual, then it's quite clear and obvious that the individual is being taxed. It's right there in plain sight.
Taxing corporations is a feel-good thing for a lot of people, despite the fact that allows the government to hide from the people the amount of tax which they are ultimately paying.
My wife retired from a company a couple of months back that passed out bonus checks from Trump tax savings in the following manner.
Board of Directors decides on the overall amount of $ based on input from the accounting department.
It then got broke down by department based on the overall payroll of their department.
Each department head decided on the best method to break down the bonus, person by person.
Once word got out that bonuses were being paid the people in many of the departments filed complaints with HR saying they had gotten nothing or very little.
After the fact the Board of Directors decided to investigate he matter with the following result.
The resulting numbers are my best recollection and so might not be 100% accurate.
3 of the 17 department heads pocketed the entire bonus themselves with the rest doing some sort of dividing up.
Of the 14 doing some sort of divvying up, 8 decided their personal bonus should be equal to half the total amount for their department.
Amazingly (at least to me) 6 of the department heads actually divided up the bonus in some justifiably equitable manner.
Some department heads rolled, so last year they simply cut every employee a $10,000 Christmas Bonus.
We could delve into all sorts of minutae, speculation, points and counter-points, and that would be missing the big picture. The fundamental underlying point is this:
Corporate taxation is more complex, less efficient, and much more highly obfuscated than individual taxation.
When the government taxes an individual, then it's quite clear and obvious that the individual is being taxed. It's right there in plain sight.
Taxing corporations is a feel-good thing for a lot of people, despite the fact that allows the government to hide from the people the amount of tax which they are ultimately paying.
Corporate taxation is pretty simple at the 100k level. All state and local taxes are expenses. All expenses are rolled into costs. All costs are subtracted from revenue to make profits. All profits are taxed at the federal level. Badabing.... Tax credits and deductions are applied no different than an individual.
In 2018, corporations paid 4.4% of US tax revenue (and arguably a portion of the 12.2% of property taxes which was then deducted) whereby the remainder was either out of pocket by individuals or deductible expenses (soc security) by corporations. Source: Sources of Tax Revenue
So when people read that corporations made 54.7% of all income in 2018 yet paid 4.4% of taxes or alternatively people paid 95.6% of all taxes yet received 45.2% of all income it strikes a chord to some (Sources of income: Corporate profits versus labor income). Of note, $468.9B was paid out as dividends by US corporations in 2018 which is non-deductible to the business and a taxable part of business earnings and also taxable to the recipient. Of course, not all companies pay out dividends.
I woke up to NBC News and Good Morning America showing Andrew Cuomo arguing for state's rights. He said "We don't have a king." He went on to say the states created the federal government and ultimately control themselves.
I'm spitballing here, but my impression was that his comments followed the statement that all 50 states (and territories, and that shithole D.C.) had declared state emergencies. The country, right now, is in a situation it has never been in before outside of wartime. I don't know if Trump is correct or not about the president having the final say on ending this total country state of emergency. I just don't have any historical perspective. On the other hand, he could just be ******* with people like Cuomo.
I thought last night's press conference was fantastic. I'm hopeful he has a montage of clips from Fauci in early February telling the MSM there's nothing for Americans to worry about, and then looks into the press gallery and says he WAS listening to Fauci. It would be epic.
I'm hopeful he has a montage of clips from Fauci in early February telling the MSM there's nothing for Americans to worry about, and then looks into the press gallery and says he WAS listening to Fauci. It would be epic.
Where is this? The only stuff I could find was that "until we start seeing positive tests in America, there is no reason to avoid Chinese goods, Chinese restaurants or wear masks. Just wash your hands."
Paraphrased obviously.
But I have to admit, I didn't really start paying attention until the Jazz v. Thunder (I almost bought some cheap tickets that night) when Gobert tested positive and then **** hit the fan.
I don't know if Trump is correct or not about the president having the final say on ending this total country state of emergency.
He is not.
Even if he does invoke the National Emergency Act, the President has virtually zero power to dictate terms to the individual states, to veto the actions of state Governors or Legislatures, etc. In fact, the president has virtually zero power to regulate anything at all at a state level. The Constitution guarantees this.
I use Duck Duck Go for this kind of search. Google only has the stuff they agree with. I searched google for "Fauci January 2020" and it's like he wasn't even alive in January.
Even if he does invoke the National Emergency Act, the President has virtually zero power to dictate terms to the individual states, to veto the actions of state Governors or Legislatures, etc. In fact, the president has virtually zero power to regulate anything at all at a state level. The Constitution guarantees this.
Joe,
I was going to do a long setup for a hypothetical, but let's just start with this. Let's say there's no coronavirus. Could Gavin Newsom decide on his own to shutter restaurants and bars and movie theaters etc.. Could he, on his own, shut down the California economy and tell people the government of California will pay them to stay home, all in the interest of mitigating perceived global warming?
I was going to do a long setup for a hypothetical, but let's just start with this. Let's say there's no coronavirus. Could Gavin Newsom decide on his own to shutter restaurants and bars and movie theaters etc.. Could he, on his own, shut down the California economy and tell people the government of California will pay them to stay home, all in the interest of mitigating perceived global warming?
My understanding of California law is that, presupposing he first declared a state of emergency, and then issued an executive order to cause the shutdown, then yes, Governor Newsom would have this authority.
In that case, the order (or, more precisely, the deceleration of emergency preceding it) would likely be deemed unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court, and the governor would likely be removed from office immediately, so it probably wouldn't be in his best interest to do so.
04-13-2020, 12:04 PM
0
used market android phones for me. Let the masses buy brand new...always.
