[Thaeris]

That would actually be a great system and hopefully it will some day happen.

Of course, in our current system, it's likely to be a corporate therapy developed by a biotech start-up, available only to the ultra-wealthy at first - thus allowing them to not only control most of the nation's wealth, but to live forever.

Tleilaxu, anyone? =)

A cookie to the first person that gets the reference WITHOUT looking it up.

Nasty, nasty, shape-shiftin' sons... er, "its"-O-b*tches...

[Kosh]

I have the ultimate solution for health care and the Government can pay for it!

Nanobots.

Develop a series of nanobots that float serenely in our bloodstreams until an infection hits and then they move to eliminate it.  Simoultaneously, they implement continuous microscopic repairs to our organs, circulatory systems and genetic structure, making everyone functionally immortal.  And they would be available to anyone for the low low cost of your soul, your firstborn and right arm.

This facetious attempt at comedy has been brought to you by my boredom and lack of wit!

Something like that will happen eventually, but unless the government steps in and subsidizes it for people who are not ultra rich then our society will be divided into two parts, one that effectively are immortal gods, and the rest of us lowly mortals.

In short, the corporate taxes are actually passed on to workers and consumers, rather than being paid by the corporation and stopping there.

There's also a lot of loopholes in the tax code that let corporations pay very little in income taxes, despite the appearently high percentage.

[Mongoose]

I have the ultimate solution for health care and the Government can pay for it!

Nanobots.

Develop a series of nanobots that float serenely in our bloodstreams until an infection hits and then they move to eliminate it.  Simoultaneously, they implement continuous microscopic repairs to our organs, circulatory systems and genetic structure, making everyone functionally immortal.  And they would be available to anyone for the low low cost of your soul, your firstborn and right arm.

This facetious attempt at comedy has been brought to you by my boredom and lack of wit!

Something like that will happen eventually, but unless the government steps in and subsidizes it for people who are not ultra rich then our society will be divided into two parts, one that effectively are immortal gods, and the rest of us lowly mortals.

And then the Great Robot Uprising happens, and we're all equally screwed.

[perihelion]

If this "effective immortality" doesn't ship with mandatory birth control, we're all ****ed within a couple generations.  You think the gerontocracy we have right now is bad...

[SpardaSon21]

No and no. Tax burden is something different.

This may not actually be very helpful, but this is a Wikipedia article on the topic.

In short, the corporate taxes are actually passed on to workers and consumers, rather than being paid by the corporation and stopping there.

Businesses passing costs onto others?  [sarcasm]*gasp* That could never happen![/sarcasm]  Seriously, businesses always pass costs onto someone else.  I thought most people knew that already.

Now, if the businesses pass the costs related to taxes onto consumers and workers, doesn't that mean reducing the taxes they have to pay would mean they don't have to pass as much on?  Higher wages for workers and lower prices for consumers seems like a good reason to lower taxes.

[Blue Lion]

No and no. Tax burden is something different.

This may not actually be very helpful, but this is a Wikipedia article on the topic.

In short, the corporate taxes are actually passed on to workers and consumers, rather than being paid by the corporation and stopping there.

Businesses passing costs onto others?  [sarcasm]*gasp* That could never happen![/sarcasm]  Seriously, businesses always pass costs onto someone else.  I thought most people knew that already.

Now, if the businesses pass the costs related to taxes onto consumers and workers, doesn't that mean reducing the taxes they have to pay would mean they don't have to pass as much on?  Higher wages for workers and lower prices for consumers seems like a good reason to lower taxes.

Why would they do that when they can just pocket the difference and keep the burden on the workers and consumers?

[SpardaSon21]

If one company pockets the extra profit, and their competitors decide to cut prices, guess who loses market share?

[Spicious]

If one company pockets the extra profit, and their competitors decide to cut prices, guess who loses market share?

If all companies pocket the extra profit, and none of their competitors decide to cut prices, guess who gets screwed?

[SpardaSon21]

The consumers obviously.  But this scenario is similar to the Prisoner's Dilemma.  If all companies pocket the profits, all of them profit.  If one company cuts prices and steals market share, everyone else loses and that company wins.

[Liberator]

Higher corporate taxes always devolve down to who ever is paying money into the corporation, whether it is consumers or stockholders.  So raising corporate taxes has little to no actual effect on the daily business practices of the corps in question.

Of course as we all know, Corporations are EVIL INCARNATE!

[Blue Lion]

Higher corporate taxes always devolve down to who ever is paying money into the corporation, whether it is consumers or stockholders.  So raising corporate taxes has little to no actual effect on the daily business practices of the corps in question.

Of course as we all know, Corporations are EVIL INCARNATE!

The quest for money at almost any cost..... that's pretty close.

[SpardaSon21]

I was just about to yell at Liberator for interfering my attempt to prove why lower corporate taxes would result in lower prices, and someone shows up and replies to his tirade before I can dress him down.  Now people are just going to ignore my statements and focus on what Liberator said.

EDIT: You know Liberator, for a while there you were pretty close to figuring out angry yelling was not a good way to get your point across in a debate.  I'm dismayed to see you slide like this since you had a lot of potential to be a valuable contributor when you weren't using words composed entirely of capital letters.

[Spicious]

The consumers obviously.  But this scenario is similar to the Prisoner's Dilemma.  If all companies pocket the profits, all of them profit.  If one company cuts prices and steals market share, everyone else loses and that company wins.

That company wins until everyone else reacts and everyone makes less money. That's how economists say things should work. This clearly does not reflect reality in a rather wide range of areas.

Prices follow a simple system in these areas: prices go up when costs go up; prices stay the same when costs go down.

[Blue Lion]

I was just about to yell at Liberator for interfering my attempt to prove why lower corporate taxes would result in lower prices, and someone shows up and replies to his tirade before I can dress him down.  Now people are just going to ignore my statements and focus on what Liberator said.

EDIT: You know Liberator, for a while there you were pretty close to figuring out angry yelling was not a good way to get your point across in a debate.  I'm dismayed to see you slide like this since you had a lot of potential to be a valuable contributor when you weren't using words composed entirely of capital letters.

Which do you think is more obvious, markets being always undercut or a static price range so companies can rake in profits? Why would companies drive their prices downward when they know it'll only hurt them in the end?

[General Battuta]

No and no. Tax burden is something different.

This may not actually be very helpful, but this is a Wikipedia article on the topic.

In short, the corporate taxes are actually passed on to workers and consumers, rather than being paid by the corporation and stopping there.

Businesses passing costs onto others?  [sarcasm]*gasp* That could never happen![/sarcasm]  Seriously, businesses always pass costs onto someone else.  I thought most people knew that already.

Now, if the businesses pass the costs related to taxes onto consumers and workers, doesn't that mean reducing the taxes they have to pay would mean they don't have to pass as much on?  Higher wages for workers and lower prices for consumers seems like a good reason to lower taxes.

So are you going to address the original point, or go charging off on a tangent accompanied by crude sarcasm?

Because I thought you wanted to know what the corporate tax burden was, and why it was so low in America.

I've explained that. Your original notion that American corporations are taxed to death, followed by MP-Ryan's explanation that they are in fact not, should now make sense.

If you want to open a new discussion at least acknowledge the effort I put into resolving this one first, without trying to make it sound like "Oh, I knew that already."

My point here was to explain why American corporations do not suffer from taxes. As before, you've gone and assumed that I was trying to make a point with this, then lashed back. It's unpleasant and unwanted.

[SpardaSon21]

Okay GB, you win, American corporations don't pay their taxes, Average Joe pays it for them.

In a situation like that though, I don't see why anyone (not talking about you here) would approve of keeping the rate where it is since it only punishes consumers.

I was just about to yell at Liberator for interfering my attempt to prove why lower corporate taxes would result in lower prices, and someone shows up and replies to his tirade before I can dress him down.  Now people are just going to ignore my statements and focus on what Liberator said.

EDIT: You know Liberator, for a while there you were pretty close to figuring out angry yelling was not a good way to get your point across in a debate.  I'm dismayed to see you slide like this since you had a lot of potential to be a valuable contributor when you weren't using words composed entirely of capital letters.

Which do you think is more obvious, markets being always undercut or a static price range so companies can rake in profits? Why would companies drive their prices downward when they know it'll only hurt them in the end?

Because it will hurt them more if they don't.  If one company could lower prices, steal market share from their competitors, and make up the lost per-unit revenue through volume, it would.  What part of "this is similar to the Prisoner's Dilemma" do you not understand?  BL, go down to the section on the PD in economics, and you'll see why companies would choose a sub-optimal result.  Yes, it talks about advertising, but the problems faced by companies in this situation wouldn't be any different.

[Liberator]

Boy, I just can't catch a break it seems.  That was supposed to be funny, especially since that's the stance most of the people posting seem to be taking.  It was a little sarcasm to lighten the mood.

Seriously, everyone complains about how much money the huge "mega" corps are making.  None of you seem to want to talk about they're charitable work or how much product they write off as giveaways.  The funniest part is that no one seems to be complaining that they make money, just that they make too much.  Who decides how much profit is too much, if the market will support it, why not?  Of course, if you have a power hungry government that wants to stick it's fingers into the pie and "help" the market support the higher prices then why should I complain.  

The same bull****(if this word offends you, I'm sorry, I'm calling it what it is) is happening in the auto market as is happening in the medical arena, all the improvements that are made to gain the fuel economy standards end up costing more money after purchase than is saved at the gas pump.  Hybrids, particularly, are DOA from the get go.  It's the same car, but instead of a gas tank and a well tuned engine, you have actually added significant weight to the car in the form of a 1/4 to 1/2 ton battery, which itself is highly hazardous to the environment should the housing be breached(like in say...a rear impact auto collision?), and a high performance electric motor(s).  To compensate for this, you lighten the body of the car to the point to where survival is a questionable activity in the hypothetical collision.  For this wonder filled experience, they charge the consumer thousands of extra dollars, which are not saved by the consumer anywhere in the maintenance or fueling of the vehicle.  And yet you have a over bearing government who just raised fuel economy standards again which will force even lighter weight, ever more unsafe automobiles onto America's highways and byways.

Also, there is a company that sells things at a reduced price and makes up for it in volume, in almost every sector of the retail market, and has be enormously successful.  The name of this company is Wal-Mart, and it is currently the largest retailer in the world with millions of outlets worldwide and selling they're products on an average of 5% less than they're competition in whatever market they are in.

[General Battuta]

Okay GB, you win, American corporations don't pay their taxes, Average Joe pays it for them.

In a situation like that though, I don't see why anyone (not talking about you here) would approve of keeping the rate where it is since it only punishes consumers.

Now that is a fair question.

Seriously, everyone complains about how much money the huge "mega" corps are making.  None of you seem to want to talk about they're charitable work or how much product they write off as giveaways.

The problem as I see it is that these megacorporations concentrate wealth to a few elite. They do benefit the system as a whole, but not nearly as well as they could. They're wealth aggregators far more than they are wealth generators.

[Liberator]

So it's ok for 10,000 people to make $500k a year, but if the person above them makes $1m because he made it possible for 2500 of that 10k to make 500k it's katie-bar-door time?

[Blue Lion]

Because it will hurt them more if they don't.  If one company could lower prices, steal market share from their competitors, and make up the lost per-unit revenue through volume, it would.  What part of "this is similar to the Prisoner's Dilemma" do you not understand?  BL, go down to the section on the PD in economics, and you'll see why companies would choose a sub-optimal result.  Yes, it talks about advertising, but the problems faced by companies in this situation wouldn't be any different.

I know what a prisoners dilemma is but why don't I see prices falling? Why does packaging for food go down in size but the prices stay the same.

Yea that's why there are price wars everywhere.