Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 03 Jun 2025, 11:19 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 11:19 am

You think taxing income hurts profits. You are therefore stupid. Taxing income does nothing to profits. It taxes INCOME - which come from profits, and many other sources in many or most cases. 


 

You left out one little detail. AI says you were too stupid to even ride the short bus.  

Corporate taxes are a direct expense for companies. A higher tax rate means a larger portion of their earnings goes towards taxes, leaving less as after-tax profit. 

How the company responds: To mitigate the impact of higher taxes, businesses may:Increase prices: Pass on the higher cost of doing business to consumers through higher prices.Reduce costs: Look for ways to cut expenses, which could include slowing wage growth or reducing investments.Lower returns to shareholders: Result in less money available for dividends or share buybacks, impacting shareholders.
 

Cannonpointer » 03 Jun 2025, 11:19 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 11:19 am

Entertaining your clumsy, pre-pubescent word problem is a DISTRACTION from the argument, low-brow. 

You think taxing income hurts profits. You are therefore stupid. Taxing income does nothing to profits. It taxes INCOME - which come from profits, and many other sources in many or most cases. 

If a fellow who owns a factory has his income taxes LOWERED, his accountant does not change the bottom line on that factory - the profits remain the same. If he has them RAISED, his accountant does not change the bottom line on that factory. The profits are not affected by tax rates - the INCOME from those profits, and all other sources (trust funds, real estate, investments, etc.) is affected.

When inputs go up, costs go up, and prices almost always go up.That's the only way to stay in business. But when a man's TAXES go up, that is HIS costs going up - not his factory's costs. Not his COMEPETITORS' factories costs. So the market is not affected. He cannot just raise his prices willy nilly, knowing that many of his competitor have decent accountants and tax attorneys who can get their taxes to nothing. If he cannot do the same, he just has to eat it. Because the market will not allow him to raise his prices out of pique. His wrath against the tax man CANNOT effectively become a punishment to consumers. And it is quite stupid to suggest otherwise. 

You've been schooled - clASS dismissed.

You're an idiot whose inexperience in business and economics is exposed with each of your moronic posts!
Here's why.
If your business shows a $1 million dollar profit and a government puts a 90% tax on your profits, they take $900,000 of that profit and leave you with $100,000 profit.  If they then LOWER the tax to 50% of your profits, you now have a $500,000 profit remaining.  And if they later cut that corporate tax to zero, YOUR $1 MILLION DOLLAR PROFIT REMAINS UNTOUCHED!  But if they leave that corporate tax at 90% and your business can't survive with earning ONLY $100,000 profit for your shareholders, you're likely to need to raise the prices for your product or watch as additional new investment in your company dries up and your unhappy shareholders begin to sell off your stock.
And if your personal income taxes are lowered, IT HAS NO BEARING WHATSOEVER ON YOUR CORPORATE TAXES!  But it WOULD CERTAINLY increase your personal income, because what you previously were paying in income tax now stays in YOUR pocket!

Do yourself and your family a favor and stay out of starting your own business until you can understand that, fool!
 

Fuelman » 03 Jun 2025, 12:07 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 12:07 pm

You left out one little detail. AI says you were too stupid to even ride the short bus.  

Corporate taxes are a direct expense for companies. A higher tax rate means a larger portion of their earnings goes towards taxes, leaving less as after-tax profit. 

You say that as if I give a **** what AI has to say, son.

You do understand it's in beta testing, yes? That's it's experimental? Ever heard the acronym GIGO?

Fuelman » 03 Jun 2025, 12:07 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 12:07 pm

How the company responds: To mitigate the impact of higher taxes, businesses may:Increase prices: Pass on the higher cost of doing business to consumers through higher prices.Reduce costs: Look for ways to cut expenses, which could include slowing wage growth or reducing investments.Lower returns to shareholders: Result in less money available for dividends or share buybacks, impacting shareholders.

Companies don't do ****. Owners do. And owners are taxed on total income - not on "profits." Many owners of companies have trusts, stocks, real estate, venture capital at play - what have you. Their INCOME tax and their PROFITS at a given company are two distinct things.

The wealthy have - and you can google this - boutique "loopholes" (you wanna use that word when you google) that allow them to pay taxes far, far below the nominal rate.Throughout our nation's history with the income tax, the highest earners have paid far, far below the nominal rate. And they didn't do this - as you suggest - by raising prices and making MORE profit. They did this by write-offs. By loopholes THEY wrote and had snuck into larger bills.

Raising prices on their goods will disadvantage them in the market and RAISE - not lower - their taxes, duh.
 
 
 

Zeets2 » 03 Jun 2025, 12:17 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 12:17 pm

You're an idiot whose inexperience in business and economics is exposed with each of your moronic posts!
Here's why.
If your business shows a $1 million dollar profit and a government puts a 90% tax on your profits, they take $900,000 of that profit

There is no tax on profit, stupid. It's an income tax, not a profit tax.

Jiggling prices up does not solve the problem (which does not exist) that you are putting forward.

If a company can bloody well DOUBLE their prices and DOUBLE their profits - which they cannot, - they will stil, under your scenario, make **** on their money. But there is no tax on profits, so you're just being stupid and conflating an income tax with a tax on profits.

Now, Jimma Cawduh had a tax on profits. That is a very distinct thing, and his windfall profits tax was tailored to a single industry caught gouging illegally. But you continue to prove ineducable.

Stay stupid, my friend.
 

LowIQTrash » 03 Jun 2025, 1:09 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 1:09 am

Corporate income taxes are levied on profit, not revenue.

In the real world, Chipotle ABSORBS 25-40% of enflaYshUN, which you conjobs agree is a (universal) tax - mainly on consumption. 

In the real world Chipotle decides to abide lower net profit (incl the tax expense) because nobody wants to pay $16 for a chicken burrito. No business owner who owns a successful business is going to close shop b/c of this reduction - in the case of Chipotle, shareholders will live with lower share prices / lower or negative investment returns depending on their entry price (which is exactly what’s happening).

You have no idea whatsoever about the amount of new corporate tax that Chipotle is willing to absorb, so stop pretending you know what you're talking about!  Nor do you understand how THOUSANDS of businesses were forced out of business under Obama when the idiot promised to force business owners to pay for their workers health insurance or be fined, which is the same as a new tax he imposed.  Just take a look at how many businesses closed and the millions of jobs that were lost between the day that **** moron was elected and the first 6 months of his 2009 presidency.  Business owners like myself stopped hiring to keep our employment from rising above the qualifying threshold requirement, but I also cut out our employee health insurance plan because Obama's mandate took away the deductibility of that plan for my company, simply because it didn't contain free abortions, which were unnecessary for me with my all-male workforce.

Are you also unaware of how many fast food restaurants in California either went out of business or left their state when they increased the minimum wage to $20 an hour?  That mandate was no different than piling a new tax onto the entire industry, forcing them to raise their prices.  And you're right, when customers were unwilling to pay $16 for a burrito or $12 for a Big Mac, many of them WERE put out of business, and most of those that remained laid off workers and installed ordering kiosks in their place to save on their labor costs.

Shocking 16,000 Jobs Lost Due to California’s $20 Fast Food Wage Hike
The data comes from the new Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
By Katy Grimes, March 8, 2025 

By the time California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law the $20 minimum wage for fast food workers, he had been warned by many that it would be devastating for the industry, but he did it anyway. Now, 16,000 fast food jobs have been lost and fast food prices are up more than 14.5%. And here is why: the $20 minimum wage harms California’s least skilled and least experienced workers, as they are no more productive, but are significantly more expensive, and results in harms the business owners as well.This week, new data released from the new Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) shows that California has now lost as many as 16,000 fast food jobs.

 

Fuelman » 03 Jun 2025, 9:56 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 9:56 am

 

 

Zeets2 » 02 Jun 2025, 12:34 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2025, 12:34 pm

 

So, the title of the thread is, "I just realized this."

Well, I just realized this: During this entire back and forth, I have been speaking about the income tax. I went back over the thread, and I see that CORPORATE tax was the term the OP used. Not income tax. So you were speaking of one thing, and I of another. You were on topic, and I was off topic.

My apologies for that mistake. I retract all of my remarks without reservation, except when I called zeke an idiot. But other than that one, I retract every argument.

I might make more arguments, but if I do, I want it to be from a clean start, with all of us at least arguing the same issue.
 

Cannonpointer » 03 Jun 2025, 12:29 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 12:29 pm

There is no tax on profit, stupid. It's an income tax, not a profit tax.

Jiggling prices up does not solve the problem (which does not exist) that you are putting forward.

If a company can bloody well DOUBLE their prices and DOUBLE their profits - which they cannot, - they will stil, under your scenario, make **** on their money. But there is no tax on profits, so you're just being stupid and conflating an income tax with a tax on profits.

Now, Jimma Cawduh had a tax on profits. That is a very distinct thing, and his windfall profits tax was tailored to a single industry caught gouging illegally. But you continue to prove ineducable.

Stay stupid, my friend.

GOD, but you're dumb!
Corporations DO NOT PAY INCOME TAXES, you **** idiot!
If they have NO PROFIT or if they lose money in a given year, THEY PAY NO CORPORATE TAXES, whether that tax rate is 10% or 40%!
I've had several years in business where I was able to show a loss AND I PAID NOTHING IN CORPORATE TAXES despite having over a million dollars each year in business income.  And what you're ALSO probably unaware of is the fact that in many cases, business losses can be carried over to reduce the tax on your profits in succeeding future years.

So stop pretending you know anything about how a business operates because you're completely clueless!
 

Cannonpointer » 03 Jun 2025, 12:41 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 12:41 pm

So, the title of the thread is, "I just realized this."

Well, I just realized this: During this entire back and forth, I have been speaking about the income tax. I went back over the thread, and I see that CORPORATE tax was the term the OP used. Not income tax. So you were speaking of one thing, and I of another. You were on topic, and I was off topic.

My apologies for that mistake. I retract all of my remarks without reservation, except when I called zeke an idiot. But other than that one, I retract every argument.

I might make more arguments, but if I do, I want it to be from a clean start, with all of us at least arguing the same issue.

Yeah, nice try dickhead, but we both know that's a complete lie, don't we?
Didn't THIS nugget of stupidity come from you?:

Corporations do not lose one penny of profit from being taxed on their income. They lose INCOME, which is DERIVED from profits. 

That is why it is called the INCOME tax and not the PROFIT tax, ya **** brick

You obviously completely believed that corporations paid income taxes, and that was the basis for your entire litany of ignorance.  And when I rubbed that fact in your face, you were forced to make a feeble attempt to save face with more of your idiotic lies, and you can't even acknowledge that I've proven that I know far more than you about business and economics.
And it's a good thing that everyone here sees what happens to an ignorant blowhard when the facts smack you upside your empty head!  So don't strain your tiny brain feverishly trying to claim you simply misunderstood, because it's far too late for that!
 

Cannonpointer » 03 Jun 2025, 12:29 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 12:29 pm

There is no tax on profit, stupid. It's an income tax, not a profit tax.

Jiggling prices up does not solve the problem (which does not exist) that you are putting forward.

If a company can bloody well DOUBLE their prices and DOUBLE their profits - which they cannot, - they will stil, under your scenario, make **** on their money. But there is no tax on profits, so you're just being stupid and conflating an income tax with a tax on profits.

Now, Jimma Cawduh had a tax on profits. That is a very distinct thing, and his windfall profits tax was tailored to a single industry caught gouging illegally. But you continue to prove ineducable.

Stay stupid, my friend.
 

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, hyperbole vs hypothetical scenarios both sides has every ancestral brain minding social ideas life isn't self evident time ignore the actual process of adapting as displaced since conceived.

31st Arrival » 03 Jun 2025, 2:25 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 2:25 pm

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, hyperbole vs hypothetical scenarios both sides has every ancestral brain minding social ideas life isn't self evident time ignore the actual process of adapting as displaced since conceived.

Agreeing to disagree how evolving actually works doesn't correct the corruption used working every alternate reality existing today dawn to dusk tomorrow happens midnight to noon same rotation end of the day happens noon to midnight same rotation.

three time frames existing intellectually in one 23 hour, 56 minute, 4 second rotation of the planet. Economic rule of 72 doesn't exceed 24/7 manifested laws ordering every generation gap to die in character rather than live by the characteristics created by specific chromosomes per ancestral lineage here today.

Zeets2 » 03 Jun 2025, 12:39 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 12:39 pm

You have no idea whatsoever about the amount of new corporate tax that Chipotle is willing to absorb, so stop pretending you know what you're talking about!  Nor do you understand how THOUSANDS of businesses were forced out of business under Obama when the idiot promised to force business owners to pay for their workers health insurance or be fined, which is the same as a new tax he imposed.  Just take a look at how many businesses closed and the millions of jobs that were lost between the day that **** moron was elected and the first 6 months of his 2009 presidency.  Business owners like myself stopped hiring to keep our employment from rising above the qualifying threshold requirement, but I also cut out our employee health insurance plan because Obama's mandate took away the deductibility of that plan for my company, simply because it didn't contain free abortions, which were unnecessary for me with my all-male workforce.

Are you also unaware of how many fast food restaurants in California either went out of business or left their state when they increased the minimum wage to $20 an hour?  That mandate was no different than piling a new tax onto the entire industry, forcing them to raise their prices.  And you're right, when customers were unwilling to pay $16 for a burrito or $12 for a Big Mac, many of them WERE put out of business, and most of those that remained laid off workers and installed ordering kiosks in their place to save on their labor costs.

You missed the entire point of my post again and went on a rant about Obama   

My arg is this:

1. Inflation is a tax (Presumably you agree)

2. Based on inflation of relatively "sticky" (non-discretionary) items, we can approximate it at 100% over the past 10-12 years (Debatable but I didn't hear you say anything contradicting this, so let's assume this is true for now)

3. Chipotle's menu items have not gone up by 100% over that time period (Fact, go into a Chipotle store to verify)

The difference between Chipotle's current pricing vs what they WOULD charge if they simply passed 100% of the inflationary effect onto consumers is what Chipotle "absorbed" as part of their losses. 

Corporate taxes would work the same way, in that Chipotle will not charge something absurd like $16 to offset the losses they would have to pay to the Feds, they would absorb part of the taxes. How much % is debatable, but the notion that "Corporations would simply pass the tax expense onto consumers" is a lie!

It is split between the 2 parties unless the goods/services in question are extremely inelastic (like insulin)

LowIQTrash » 03 Jun 2025, 4:16 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 4:16 pm

You missed the entire point of my post again and went on a rant about Obama   

My arg is this:

1. Inflation is a tax (Presumably you agree)

2. Based on inflation of relatively "sticky" (non-discretionary) items, we can approximate it at 100% over the past 10-12 years (Debatable but I didn't hear you say anything contradicting this, so let's assume this is true for now)

3. Chipotle's menu items have not gone up by 100% over that time period (Fact, go into a Chipotle store to verify)

The difference between Chipotle's current pricing vs what they WOULD charge if they simply passed 100% of the inflationary effect onto consumers is what Chipotle "absorbed" as part of their losses. 

Corporate taxes would work the same way, in that Chipotle will not charge something absurd like $16 to offset the losses they would have to pay to the Feds, they would absorb part of the taxes. How much % is debatable, but the notion that "Corporations would simply pass the tax expense onto consumers" is a lie!

It is split between the 2 parties unless the goods/services in question are extremely inelastic (like insulin)

Your assumptions are completely inaccurate.
A 100% increase in inflation IS NOT the same as a 100% increase in tax!
Inflation hits ALL sectors of the economy so it's not JUST a tax increase.  It increases your costs for labor, for supplies, for raw materials or food and forces all your fixed costs; rent, electricity, gas, delivery charges, maintenance, healthcare insurance, etc., and that leaves you virtually no alternative but to raise your prices accordingly.  A singular increase in the minimum wages that a restaurant like Chipotle is forced to pay in California would NOT affect your rent, energy, gas, or most every other fixed costs.

Of course their prices haven't gone up by 100% over that time because not every sector had their expenses increased that amount.  For example, if you own your factory outright as I did, you have no rent that can be raised by your landlord.  How many thousands of businesses converted from oil to gas as I did when the price of oil shot up over the last 40 years that resulted in LOWER energy costs to the business?  How much has technology reduced business costs over that time?  I once needed 3 secretaries to handle the billing, purchasing, phone calls, and filing that only needed one secretary years later thanks to the innovation of first the fax machine, and then the computer to do all the billing and filing that took up banks of filing cabinets in the past.  You see it in every business now where there were once a dozen switchboard operators needed in a large company to now where voicemail and new phone technology eliminated all that, and even down to the local McDonald's that eliminated many workers by adding kiosks to their store.  There are countless other technological innovations that have provided far greater efficiency in production and other services as well, and price adjustments have been made all along.  Corporate taxes DO NOT work the same way, and the only thing that prevents them from increasing their pricing for the full amount of the tax increase is knowing what your competition will do.  I raised prices many times in my business even though I did not have the same cost increases as much of my competition did, simply because it raised my profits.  You can like that or hate it, but it's done all the time.
 

Zeets2 » 03 Jun 2025, 1:02 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 1:02 pm

Yeah, nice try dickhead, but we both know that's a complete lie, don't we?
Didn't THIS nugget of stupidity come from you?:

Corporations do not lose one penny of profit from being taxed on their income. They lose INCOME, which is DERIVED from profits. 

That is why it is called the INCOME tax and not the PROFIT tax, ya **** brick

You obviously completely believed that corporations paid income taxes, and that was the basis for your entire litany of ignorance.  And when I rubbed that fact in your face, you were forced to make a feeble attempt to save face with more of your idiotic lies, and you can't even acknowledge that I've proven that I know far more than you about business and economics.
And it's a good thing that everyone here sees what happens to an ignorant blowhard when the facts smack you upside your empty head!  So don't strain your tiny brain feverishly trying to claim you simply misunderstood, because it's far too late for that!

Eat me, sore winner. You are a wee tiny man.   
 

I went to the same parties that Brett Kavanaugh went to in Bethesda, MD

Joebot was there then..

https://youtu.be/H-jiH6IgvjM?si=RXhmnzevBUlfR4dt
 
 

It's somewhere O'Clock

https://youtu.be/Mxy8Qwq67_k?si=59dngV3IPX4xMZWW

Cannonpointer » 03 Jun 2025, 5:47 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 5:47 pm

Eat me, sore winner. You are a wee tiny man.  :LOL:  
 

Your contextual manhood is a topic of context over content to your specific location as part of an ancestral lineage never accepting how evolving worked in plain sight since you arrived in space a fertilized cell.

Intellectual minds larger than their genetic time alive doesn't produce better tomorrows than ancestry develops current population living as eternally separated forward, daily here.

Dawn to dusk has manifested 3 days a week working each rotation added within the global human population daily here. Yesterday, today, tomorrow. Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, 365, 365, 365, 366 when each rotation of the planet happens in exactly 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds a rotation that averages out 365.2422 days an annual revolution of this 3rd rock from a star solar system.

Intellectual missing links of genetic outcomes is science fiction mathematics just like economic principals creating artificial value to time inhabiting space in a specific generation gap, ancestral lineage, species, food chain native to this universal location as any other would be to their location. Perpetual balancing is a self evident result as to why eternal differences exist in series parallel positions of ancestry currently alive now.

8.1 billion humans alive and seems I am the only one noticing how corruption is never corrected in any society in history or current events.

Cannonpointer » 03 Jun 2025, 5:47 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 5:47 pm

Eat me, sore winner. You are a wee tiny man. 

And you're a lying, ignorant loser who refuses to acknowledge the fact that YOU were the complete idiot in this thread and not me!
Chew on that, weakling.
 

31stArrival » 03 Jun 2025, 2:28 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 2:28 pm

Agreeing to disagree how evolving actually works doesn't correct the corruption used working every alternate reality existing today dawn to dusk tomorrow happens midnight to noon same rotation end of the day happens noon to midnight same rotation.

three time frames existing intellectually in one 23 hour, 56 minute, 4 second rotation of the planet. Economic rule of 72 doesn't exceed 24/7 manifested laws ordering every generation gap to die in character rather than live by the characteristics created by specific chromosomes per ancestral lineage here today.

Now the babbling stable boi talks to herself!
 

murdock » 04 Jun 2025, 9:51 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 9:51 am

Now the babbling stable boi talks to herself!
 

Oh how defiant you are with a we believe mentality facing an individual understanding his single time displaced.

Zeets2 » 04 Jun 2025, 9:43 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 9:43 am

And you're a lying, ignorant loser who refuses to acknowledge the fact that YOU were the complete idiot in this thread and not me!
Chew on that, weakling.

Seriously? I DID admit that I was thinking of one thing - the wrong thing, - and you guys were thinking of another. I took the blame. I apologised. I retracted my arguments. I said I was wrong.I apologised. Here is my post on that, in pertinent part:

You were on topic, and I was off topic.

My apologies for that mistake. I retract all of my remarks without reservation

Now, I will grant you this: My error was extreme, because in the beginning of the thread, I expressly talked about taxes on PROFITS. But in my brain, I was STILL thinking of the income tax on personal wealth.  The moment I saw my error, I immediately retracts my arguments and admitted fault. That is my claim - you are free to accept my claim or reject my claim. I genuinely do not give a ****. 

My commitment is to own my errors, explain where I **** up, clear the air, and drag no lies behind me. Whether you believe me or not is absolutely irrelevant to my commitment. I have done what I am committed to in the matter, and what you do or say in regard to that is meaningless.