|
Post by billt on Feb 14, 2007 17:19:10 GMT -5
NO, let us settle this OBVIOUS FACT.
first i invite rich with his degrees to explain how it is POSSIBLE for a corporation(an entity that OWNS NOTHING) can possibly pay one penny of income taxes?
matt wouldnt allow the foolishness on air, but please enlighten me rich!
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 14, 2007 17:23:35 GMT -5
NO, let us settle this OBVIOUS FACT. first i invite rich with his degrees to explain how it is POSSIBLE for a corporation(an entity that OWNS NOTHING) can possibly pay one penny of income taxes? matt wouldnt allow the foolishness on air, but please enlighten me rich! In fact, corporations do pay, as a third party administator, taxes. I think the point that you are trying to make is that they do not absorb the cost. And corporations do own assets. As a shareholder I would be very upset to find corporations that I've invested held no assets. Your language is wrong, but I think in spirit you are correct.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Feb 14, 2007 17:41:42 GMT -5
the corporation "holds", that isnt ownership.
and yes of course the corporation officers write the check for "taxes" but every penny of the money comes from people NOT the corporation, the consumers PAY that money OR the owners get less profit.
think of your checking account please, when you write a check the BANK actually hands over the money, did the bank "pay" you debts, or did YOU pay them?
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 14, 2007 18:13:25 GMT -5
"or the owners get less profits" You answered your own question "BillT the Science Guy" The cost of making and marketing a product has very little to do with the price we see in the marketplace. When Nike figures out a way to make shoes cheaper..they don't lower their price..they increase their profits. When corporations are taxed they keep prices at a sellable amount. "an entity that owns nothing" ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME??? When Fed EX buys 10 computers from Dell.....THEY OWN THEM..They can sell them, destroy them, whatever they want because the entity that is Fed Ex owns them. Corporate tax From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Corporate tax refers to a direct tax levied by various jurisdictions on the profits made by companies or associations. Now he will tell us Wikipedia doesn't know what its talking about. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_taxMaybe you should stick to science BillT!
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 14, 2007 18:20:02 GMT -5
Corporations make use of a workforce educated primarily from PUBLIC SCHOOLS paid with tax dollars. They use roads and highways paid for with tax dollars. They use police and fire protection. They use the legal system more than private citizens do. ALl the government organizations that were created to regulate commerce are paid for by tax dollars.
The corporate tax rate is 35%.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Feb 14, 2007 18:28:12 GMT -5
amazing rich, HOW is it possible for a corporation to pay a tax? where does its money come from ploease?
nice socialist rant i admit, but has NOTHING to do with the question i posed!
|
|
|
Post by billt on Feb 14, 2007 18:30:46 GMT -5
rich, find a lawyer FAST, you have a valid lawsuit, you paid for a college education but did NOT get it!
|
|
|
Post by billt on Feb 14, 2007 18:33:30 GMT -5
here is your first evidence
"The cost of making and marketing a product has very little to do with the price we see in the marketplace."
that alone is PROOF of no college level thought, but also will bring your high school diploma into question.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Feb 14, 2007 18:36:12 GMT -5
i cant wait to here " fed ex" go to a board meeting and say "screw you people, this is MY STUFF"!
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 14, 2007 18:52:24 GMT -5
BILLT- If I can make a burger for 1.75, and it costs all my competitors 2.50 to make and they are selling them for 3.00......... I will sell mine for 2.90 to MAXIMIZE PROFIT because that is the going rate. How do you think these companies make so much money BILL? ? Selling stuff for just barely over what it cost them??? I didn't say FED EX was a person you moron. Try and take one of their trucks and explain to them they don't own it.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 14, 2007 18:56:29 GMT -5
BILLT- "The Science Guy"
You might want to sue your spelling teacher.....check the thread topic.....i believe its corporations not coroporations.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Feb 14, 2007 19:01:05 GMT -5
false analogy rich....it CANT cost you that much less to make the SAME burger...NOT possible.
even using your bad example......the others are costing 2.50 and selling for 3.00, BUT according to YOU in this very thread, their cost of production is only a tiny component of what they charge for the end product........2.50 out of 3.00 is a mighty BIG part of the price.
enlighten me further please, this is fun.
NOT recognizing a typo, rich that is hilarious
i am guilty of not fixing every typo.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 14, 2007 19:11:30 GMT -5
I'll agree to drop the personal stuff if you will.
It was only an example.
I work for a medical supply company. Our rates ARE NOT based on what it takes to manufacture and market our product.....We sell our product at a rate that is w the going market rate and about in line with our competitors. Since our profit margin is way over 100%, the cost of the item has vitually nothing to do with it.
How much do you think a fountain drink at McDonalds costs them?? What do they charge you?? its unrelated to what it costs them.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Feb 14, 2007 19:21:29 GMT -5
then why dont you sell your items for 40% of what you sell for now? before you answer rich, according to YOU and i quote again this time with different wording but again YOUR words. "its unrelated to what it costs them." rich, you are giving insight into the liberal/socialist mindset.....you will disregard obvious FACT(such as the COST of making/marketing a good clearly is a HUGE factor in its end price) to make a FALSE point, that being that the evil corporations ONLY care about "profit". you also fail to grasp that ALL the costs of taxes on corporations get passed on to the consumer, IF they didnt there would be NO "profit" to tax!
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 14, 2007 19:34:19 GMT -5
Bill I am not sure where you are not understanding.
I just gave you 2 examples where cost of making/marketing did not affect ultimate price.
The fountain drink example is perfect. I have heard that it costs Mcdonald's between3-5 cents for a medium fountain drink----they charge what 1.35??? What is that 1500% profit???
So if the government has a 35% tax rate are they going to raise their drinks by 35% or consider it part of the Cost of the product??? And only make 975% profit?
I admit not all businesses have this kind of profit margin but many do.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Feb 14, 2007 19:41:21 GMT -5
rich, i dont know why you persist in this obvious nonsense, quoting again
"I just gave you 2 examples where cost of making/marketing did not affect ultimate price."
rich there are NO examples where costs of marketing/making "did not affect" the price.
OBVIOUSLY the costs must be met when looking at pricing.
rich the cup alone costs MORE than you claim for the entire soft drink....."you've heard" alot of nonsense and so far dont seem to have the basic grasp of reality to discern BS from fact.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 14, 2007 19:43:28 GMT -5
I can discern your BS from Fact later Bill
|
|
|
Post by billt on Feb 14, 2007 19:49:29 GMT -5
I claim the cost of making/marketing items is a very large factor in their ultimate pricing.
rich says those costs have NOTHING to do with the ultimate price.
i proclaim my statement as FACT and richs as pure BS.
i am also willing to hear other opinions, lets take a vote?
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 14, 2007 20:04:47 GMT -5
BillT -
You have poor reading comprehension skills to go along with your poor spelling and listening skills.
From above:
"I just gave you 2 examples where cost of making/marketing did not affect ultimate price."
"I admit not all businesses have this kind of profit margin but many do. "
Many items in the market place have tremendous profit margins-----in those cases, the cost of making/marketing does not affect the final cost. What the market rate is the main factor.
Corporate profits are at record highs in many industries.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Feb 14, 2007 20:17:40 GMT -5
here are those examples rich
"If I can make a burger for 1.75, and it costs all my competitors 2.50 to make and they are selling them for 3.00......... I will sell mine for 2.90 to MAXIMIZE PROFIT because that is the going rate."
a FALSE example because NOBODY can make the SAME burger that everyone else in the world costs 2.50 to make for 1.75, BUT given that in YOUR example the COST is 5/6ths of the total price.
thank you for supporting MY POINT.
second example.
"The fountain drink example is perfect. I have heard that it costs Mcdonald's between3-5 cents for a medium fountain drink----they charge what 1.35??? What is that 1500% profit???"
another utterly FALSE example the cost is MUCH more than you claim and the profit is NOWHERE in the ballpark of 1500%.
you did get in a socialist dig that i admit.
"Corporate profits are at record highs in many industries."
i will make it real simple for you rich. just ONE example of a consumer good that the cost of getting it to the consumer has NO IMPACT on pricing.
JUST ONE?
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 14, 2007 20:45:25 GMT -5
BillT - Are you serious? How about: cd's Dvd's soft drinks-(i can buy them at the supermarket a 12 pack for 4.00 thats .33 a piece and yet they sell them for .75 at the convenience store-crazy huh? What is that BILL around 120% mark up from the grocery store and the convenience store? How does the difference between this being in a convenience store over the grocery store result in a 120% MARK UP?? Are they paying Convenience store folks 120% more than grocery store employees?
|
|
|
Post by lawman on Feb 14, 2007 20:51:43 GMT -5
rich, save your energy.....you're gonna need it for your 'recovery call' to burt 'n squirt tomorrow after your disasterous call today!
Man, they 'bashed your brains' out......and took you behind the barn!
|
|
|
Post by Noone important on Feb 14, 2007 21:12:39 GMT -5
Do tell explain this.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 14, 2007 21:13:09 GMT -5
yes they went on for about 30 minutes.
Adults that get bent over "friggin" or "screwed" I mean these are sanitized alternatives to offensive words. Its like Leave It to Beavr.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 15, 2007 0:20:19 GMT -5
First, please differentiate between "gross profit" and "profit margins".
If you're a Democrat/Socialist, you point to the gross profit because it best frames your argument; if you're a Republican/Capitalist, you point to the profit margin because it best frames yours.
Still, I think the margin is the better barometer of a company's fiscal condition, if for no other reason than that is the final measuring stick of the profits a company made after all expenses are paid (although I suppose you could make a case for 'earnings per share' as well).
It depends on your ideological perspective as to what a "reasonable profit" (or a "living wage" for that matter) is.
Hillary Clinton can take the podium and rant about Exxon/Mobil making $40 billion profit last year and she can make the case that that profit is "excessive" and that she should "take it" to promote some portion of her personal agenda. $40 billion, being basically an incomprehensible number to anyone not named Bill Gates, certainly comes across as "excessive" to Joe Six Pack.
However, Neal Boortz can come right back and point out that E/M made only about a 12% profit which is far less than, say, banks, pharmaceutical companies or indeed many other businesses make. Joe Six Pack is substantially less impressed with a company that makes only 12 cents per unit of whatever it is they sell.
As for the main argument, I'd be surprised if companies didn't pay some level of taxes in and of themselves, but I'd tend to think it would be more along the lines of maybe capital gains, land leases (questionable if that is a true tax) and the like.
I would think, though, that the vast majority of revenue dubbed "corporate income taxes" are paid by the consumers of whatever it is the corporation makes/sells, passed along, as with just about all other expenses, as the cost of doing business.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 15, 2007 8:27:05 GMT -5
I don't think Hillary is interested in taking people's profits-
Just ending corporate welfare and our Subsidizing say OIL when its at its peak profits.
|
|
|
Post by killer on Feb 15, 2007 10:24:29 GMT -5
This thread question is a good one. I've heard the talk-show hosts constantly correct people (not sure if they are right though) and tell them blatantly that "CORPORATIONS DON'T PAY TAXES!!"
But I thought corporations filled out tax returns and paid taxes. It could be argued that whatever taxes they pay are passed along in price of product or service. However, the corporations write the check. If a person has a business, do they not pay taxes? Of course they do. But they try to cover this cost in the prices they charge for their product. Yet, we don't hear people say, "Business owners pay no taxes."
|
|
|
Post by billt on Feb 15, 2007 11:53:24 GMT -5
the business owner is a person correct? so indeed that "person" that owns a business pays the taxes.
same thing with big corporations, the owners pay the taxes with money they got from the consumers.
again the checking account analogy....when you write a check to pay a bill the bank actually hands over the cash not you, so did the bank pay your debt?
ONLY PEOPLE pay taxes.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 15, 2007 14:33:20 GMT -5
billt is right. We don't have anyone to pass along our tax obligation to, where as corporations do. If somebody can figure out a paradigm to accomplish this, let us know.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 15, 2007 16:29:19 GMT -5
I noticed BillT dodged answering the coke example above. Some of the money they get from consumers BillT is called PROFIT!!!!!!!!!! The corporate tax rate in the US is 35%-------------This rate has been on a steady decline.
BillT argues they pass that on to the consumer.
I argue that it comes from profits. (especially from companies with high profit margins, which apparently BillT doesn't believe any companies have high profit margins.
BillT argues that companies don't own anything.
I argue that companies are legal entities that own whatever, land,material,vehicles, other companies etc.etc. etc.
|
|