Using your example of an item that has a 15% mark up. 10 is now 11.50. That means the store owner would expense the 10 dollars - that’s a write off, he does not pay tax on it because it cost him 10 dollars. He has to pay 50% (in your example) tax on the 1.50 additional. Now… that said. This is still not how it works because if he wants to make 15% profit he’s probably having to double the price of the item to keep the store open, pay the rental, the insurance, the employees, the utilities etc. So that 10 dollar item would be 20 dollars of which he net proceeds 10 dollars and that is what he owes taxes on, but he’s not adding an additional 50% because that would be endless.
Renzatic
(Professor Emeritus Billy H. Wafflesmith XIV Esq.)
42
Not quite. California and Oregon, which have the highest and 3rd highest income tax rates in the country, are among the fastest growing states in the country populationwise.
California in particular, despite imposing all kinds of excessively ridiculous expenses, such as a 13% income tax, a laundry list of smaller, more specific taxes paired alongside that, and one of the highest costs of living in the country to top it all off, still has people crawling over each other to gain access to the high paying jobs and other various opportunities provided those who live there.
@humanartist
It has already been pointed out that the accounting doesn’t work that way. I’ll attempt to fix your example:
A grocer purchases hams at $10 a piece and wants a 15% net profit margin (=$1.50) which will be taxed as income at a flat rate of 50%. There are no other expenses to cover. He therefore needs to charge a total markup of 30% for a final price of $13, or an extra 15% from the point of the consumer. If we assume there’s an additional 10% sales tax (not given in the original example), the total price increase due to taxes would be 25%, yielding a final price of $14.30.
A consumer earns 100$ income and pays 25% taxes on it, leaving him with 75$. For those 75$, he can buy 5.24 hams at $14.30 each. Had neither he nor the grocer been taxed at all and the price of $11.50 was maintained, he could’ve purchased 8.69 hams instead, missing out on 3.45 hams, an effective burden of roughly 40%. Note that sales tax only applies to the final consumer, businesses don’t pay it.
As it has been mentioned, despite all the widely publicized tax dodging, not only do the “rich” and “super rich” pay taxes, they pay the lions share of taxes, followed by middle class earners. The bottom earners not only pay the smallest share in taxes, they are also the biggest recipients of benefits paid for by tax money (on average, not individually).
In terms of internal migration, there are more people leaving these states than people coming in. Cost of living and taxation certainly plays a major role here. The population may nevertheless grow due to births and external immigration.
You all have been void of the understanding, that the rich are raising the prices to over their tax expense. If the rich pay 50% tax, then the price goes up 50%. By doing this, he makes the client pay the tax for him.
Even if the tax rate was made even, that we all paid the same. The prices will not go down. They will keep the prices the same, because the clients are already paying that price. It’s stuck this way.
They are still paying taxes because they are still sending money to the treasury.
Any business owner is free to take their effective tax rate into account when pricing their product, including such businesses as a one man lawn mowing service run by a teenager. The way I read the statement, it almost sounds like a fair tax rate would be businesses losing money once the taxes are paid (which would effectively ban any kind of private enterprise as it would not be possible for anyone to make money).
If you run a business, all of your money comes from customers buying your product or service (this includes money that pays the expenses ranging from utilities to wages to taxes).
for the past century, it comes from God’s print shop dummy
i wish, i hope for discrete yet automated open system - open bureaucracy, politics & economy - no speculations, frauds, betrayals - intelligent and healthy individual with ultimate communication tool at hand
and not to forget - as soon as aggressor has no means of attack, or as soon as the weak has the power to prevent aggression there appears balance & communication between different sides
This is true, but the prices are higher because of the high tax rate the rich pay. If they didn’t pay as much, the prices could be lower. It would not do any good now, the only would maintain the price and welcome a higher level of profit. This is because the people already pay so much.
The business owner raises prices so the consumers pays the tax. By doing this, the business man has 100%.
They should not pay taxes on income.
Renzatic
(Professor Emeritus Billy H. Wafflesmith XIV Esq.)
50
Sortakinda, but not entirely. All overhead costs are ultimately forwarded to the consumers who buy their products, but taxes are generally taken out of end of year profits for corporations, which are forecasted, nearly impossible to predict with 100% accuracy. If any corporation were to try to cover their ass on that front, they’d have to raise the prices of their goods by a considerable margin to make up for any potential end of year losses. That, in turn, could put them at risk of further eating into that bottom line if these price bumps scare their customers away, likely costing them more than what they would have had they just paid the taxes to begin with.
So it’s not a case of “If Corporation X is charged Y% amount in taxes, they’ll raise the prices of their goods by Y% to make up the loss”, rather it’s “corporations want to keep prices low to grow and maintain their business, but don’t want to pay so much in taxes at the end of the year, that’s why they cheese things by running their bookkeeping through tax shelters.”
If say, the state created regulations to cripple the concept of automation and thereby cause companies to need many times the number of workers for the same output, then the rising price situation you bemoan will get far worse (ie. driving inflation far higher than a rising minimum wage alone). The reason would be that suddenly, the average large business will be saddled with many millions of dollars in new labor costs.
The negative fallout will happen way too fast to be staved off by molecular printers in every home capable of placing trillions of atoms a second (as is one of the dreams expressed here).
If they business are not increases prices to level out the taxes, then they truly are paying an unfair rate. Even though, I think the tax should be same for everyone, It doens’t matter how much more they earn. 50% tax rate is dangerous. History shows what happens when the taxes get too high. And I think he is in rebellion, without showing it, right now. He might even been doing things to make a mess.
Certain families in power made it that way they will never be at loss - they always profit. It’s not society that benefits but small group of privileged by the name or the gene, if you wish.
Ace, who took gold from common American ppl & Who ‘designed’ the first recession? Who profits off of every US dollar bill printed?
At least i’m aware of dreams, while many - majority is truly delusional.
1 Like
Renzatic
(Professor Emeritus Billy H. Wafflesmith XIV Esq.)
56
At the end of the day, all that matters is that a business is enjoying profit, and experiencing growth.
Though I can’t help but wonder where you’re getting this 50% tax rate from. Previously, the corporate tax rate was a variable percentage, with 35% being the absolute maximum. Though that maximum was rarely ever enforced, and for the rare occasions it were, then our larger corporations would more than make up for the loss in profits from various subsidizes and specific tax breaks provided by the government. These days, it’s a flat 21%.
I also have to wonder where you’re reading your history, considering that everyone, low, middle, upper, and corporate, have seen a near constant decline in their income taxes since the Bush administration. There’s still plenty of room to argue various vagaries, but overall, we’re paying considerably less now than we were in the 80’s and 90’s, who in turn, were paying considerably less than those who made their fortunes in the 50’s and 60’s.
It’s why I can never take these WE’RE OVERTAXED, AND TAXES ARE DESTROYING THE COUNTRY arguments seriously. There’s no historical context for it, and no observable reality illustrating lower taxes somehow makes us more prosperous overall. Our economy has grown practically unabated since the Great Depression, with the late 70’s being the only real exception to that nigh uninterrupted ride, and the upper tiers of our economy are currently and have been enjoying a near golden age in terms of profit margins.
What is the plan then, could it be that such ideas are driven in part because many young adults can’t stand the idea that someone might have more money than someone else (as having an upper class made from successful business owners and investors is a natural occurrence of every economic system not modeled after North Korea’s)?
I do agree to a point that healthcare is overpriced (ie. it shouldn’t be 50 bucks for a Tylenol when at the hospital when that buys you a tub of pills at Walgreens), but we need to realize the real drivers of cost. Those drivers are the obesity crises, widespread drug use, the epidemic of suicide attempts, the epidemic of massively stupid stunts for YouTube fame, and the massive regulation of recent years that led to doctors becoming paper pushers and led to more red tape for companies making new medical products.
You are either brainwashed, gullible, or just plain ignorant to make such a grossly false statement.
The “rich” foot at least 70% of the tab, do you pay 70% of everything you earn?
You want to know who doesn’t pay taxes at all, bet you won’t like the answer though.
Those hemorraging across the border, they come here and guess who gets to pay for them, not a peep out of you about them getting a free ride.
How exactly do you steal from the poor, they have nothing to steal? Do you complain about welfare recipients wasting the taxpayers hand out on lottery tickets because they’re ignorant and believe they actually have a chance of winning their retirement money.
Criminals in prison pay nothing in taxes either, but everyone else is expected to pay for them, sometimes for life, because they couldn’t control themselves.
Don’t hear you whining about them.
So how much does a socialist thief like yourself think would be a “fair” amount for a “rich” person to pay so those, who by their own bad decisions screwed themselves over, and don’t have to haul their lazy asses out of bed and can continue to leech off everybody else?
How much? 80%? 90%? 100%?
How about you voluntarily pay more if you’re so worried about it, or are you a welfare leech too that believes you’re “entitled” to a share of everybody else’s property?
Renzatic
(Professor Emeritus Billy H. Wafflesmith XIV Esq.)
60
Probably because they’re not getting a free ride. This notion that illegal immigrants come streaming across the borders by the millions, immediately gaining access to medicare, unemployment, and all the lobster food stamps can buy the moment they set foot on US soil is but a talking point people spew about on the internet to get everyone riled up in a self-righteous fury. There’s absolutely no evidence our safety nets are being so abused.
