EPT
Corporate Taxes
| Blogs > shmay |
|
shmay
United States1091 Posts
| ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
That being said, the corporations that own the country are many times not in the country. They go overseas. So I definitely can see the point of the smaller corporations getting squeezed while the larger ones eat up all the money, which is also bad. I say stiff tariffs and get rid of the federal reserve, which just keeps lowering the interest rate, which makes ALL dollars worth less. Its a hidden tax. | ||
|
ReTrooper
Germany526 Posts
One key argument is that the money companies spend for taxes can't be used for investments. For a single case this might be self-evident, but when you regard the economy as a whole this would suggest the government kept the money forever instead of spending it. And what does a government spend money for? Stuff those same companies produce. (they buy foreign products as well but not many) Now where did those companies get their money from? In general, doing business. Producing, selling, retailing etc. To do this, they need demand. And what causes demand? The revenues they produce. Regarding a whole economy, business men buy from business men, the government buys from them, and the employees also buy from them. Obvious. Where do government and employees get their money from? Go figure. Ergo, in general, companies first finance the demand they later abuse. Thus it makes little difference if they get their money back from customers (by being able to invest which takes time) or from the government (which returns a good part of the money it got from taxes - directly or indirectly). So why lowering corporate taxes? To lower prices? To save workplaces? Bullshit. (okay this would fill plenty of pages to explain but simly put: economy just doesn't work that way) The only advantage would come from improving the world market situation of said economy FOR A VERY SHORT PERIOD, because other countries won't just stand there and watch you grabbing bigger profits, will they? They'll also lower their corporate taxes and there we have a very neat vicious circle. PS: In the beginning of the video the guy states that even Marx has said the source of wealth, growth and higher living standard would be savings & investments. This is simply wrong, he does not state that anywhere. Just by coincidence, it is the first "fact" presented. Very serious. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
Quite bad video btw ( pure ideology ). | ||
|
shmay
United States1091 Posts
On February 09 2008 07:08 fight_or_flight wrote: The fact is we are all getting completely screwed and the corporations that already own the country don't deserve any tax breaks. You're missing the point. Lowering corporate tax rates is intended to give more incentive to people to start businesses, not to give more money to "the rich." Also, I think the video explains pretty clearly that corporate taxes are in fact a tax on everyone. | ||
|
shmay
United States1091 Posts
On February 09 2008 08:05 Boblion wrote: LOL didnt know that Ireland was the second richest country in Europe. Quite bad video btw ( pure ideology ). Common reply by people who disagree with this stuff. I don't see how any of it is wrong, even if it is ideology. Ireland is just another example of a country that has turned to free-market policies and grown more prosperous because of it. | ||
|
dronebabo
10866 Posts
| ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On February 09 2008 08:47 shmay wrote: Common reply by people who disagree with this stuff. I don't see how any of it is wrong, even if it is ideology. Ireland is just another example of a country that has turned to free-market policies and grown more prosperous because of it. Sry but this video lost its credibility with this statement: Ireland is the second richest country in Europe. It made me laugh. edit: well i googled and it seems true. But this video is still funny when u know this: Wealth redistribution ( It is wikipedia stuff but i think that it is quite interesting )Ireland's new wealth is not evenly distributed. The United Nations reported in 2004 that Ireland was second only to the United States in inequality among Western nations. Ireland doesnt seem that great for the second richest country in Europe  Low taxes mean high inequalities  | ||
|
FieryBalrog
United States1381 Posts
On February 09 2008 09:50 Boblion wrote: But this video is still funny when u know this: ( It is wikipedia stuff but i think that it is quite interesting ) Ireland doesnt seem that great for the second richest country in Europe Low taxes mean high inequalities People who don't know much about economics are funny, not this video. Wealth distribution in and of itself indicates nothing about a country's prosperity. Its one of the reasons poverty is such a nonsense measurement in Western nations, because its defined as a standard deviation from the median salary (wealth distribution). Thus everyone could get incredibly wealthy and poverty could still remain the same simply by definition. Poverty only goes down when incomes converge towards the median (less variety in distribution) even if incomes don't go up overall. Obvious example of this, poor people in America are many times richer (as defined economically) than people were 200 years ago, yet poverty is still "widespread". Thus exactly what I said happened: just about everyone in America is quite wealthy today by any historical standards, but we still have a "war on poverty". The point is, inequality is just a soundbite until you do some more research. It can correlate with other negative factors (such as corruption), particularly in developing nations so its an important measurement for economic development. | ||
|
ineverwin
United States93 Posts
| ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On February 09 2008 11:25 FieryBalrog wrote: People who don't know much about economics are funny, not this video. You dont know me or my studies . But i wont start another argument with you, so i wont make sarcasm too  . I will try to explain why i dont like this video with my poor english.On February 09 2008 11:25 FieryBalrog wrote: Wealth distribution in and of itself indicates nothing about a country's prosperity. Well it is both true and wrong. A country can be rich, for example United-States and have many "poor" people. But i dont like this video because the guy is saying that the main problem in US is corporate taxes like if reducing it will be the ultimate solution to US economic problems. That is what i call reductive idology. He eludes many more important economic problems in US. Nevertheless i am not absolutly opposed to reduction of corporate tax but i think that it will mostly benefit to the shareholders, and i dont think that they are in the need. Ok you can argue and say that corporate taxes are linked to prices of products and it will make life cheaper for people, but as a French guy i can tell you something: Like it is said in the video corporate taxes have been reduced in France for several years however life is way more expensive than before ( and most of the wages havent really increased ). There is nowadays a huge controversy about ' le pouvoir d'achat " ( purchasing power ) in France, and many people of the right still think that reducing corporate taxes again and again can lead to a better life for everyone. They are dishonest people because the only products whom prices get lower are household electricals, computers, mobile phone and other electronic stuff. Those things arent produced in France so i doubt that reducing corporate taxes will make the prices lower. On February 09 2008 11:25 FieryBalrog wrote: Its one of the reasons poverty is such a nonsense measurement in Western nations, because its defined as a standard deviation from the median salary (wealth distribution). Thus everyone could get incredibly wealthy and poverty could still remain the same simply by definition. Poverty only goes down when incomes converge towards the median (less variety in distribution) even if incomes don't go up overall. True but do the the top 10% need more money ? + Show Spoiler + In the United States The United States is one of the richest countries in the world (2nd behind Kuwait), and in 2000, the mean wealth was $144,000 per person.[6] In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth. On February 09 2008 11:25 FieryBalrog wrote: Obvious example of this, poor people in America are many times richer (as defined economically) than people were 200 years ago, yet poverty is still "widespread". Thus exactly what I said happened: just about everyone in America is quite wealthy today by any historical standards, but we still have a "war on poverty". Wealth and poverty are relative concepts and you can always say that nowadays poor American people are way more rich than cavemen, but this isnt really contructive when you see the number of money problems that they encounter everyday. On February 09 2008 11:25 FieryBalrog wrote: The point is, inequality is just a soundbite until you do some more research. It can correlate with other negative factors (such as corruption), particularly in developing nations so its an important measurement for economic development. Yea, but it is my right to think that reducing taxes wont change anything except to give more money to shareholders that they will use to speculate. | ||
| ||
