Blackjack and Card Counting Forums - BlackjackInfo.com

  #91  
Old October 16th, 2011, 07:40 AM
mmeyers mmeyers is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: South
Posts: 74
Default Effect of 25% Corporate Tax Rate

Quote:
Originally Posted by QFIT View Post
Good. You just keep repeating that companies will pass on taxes with zero evidence or examples.
Because the economy is a complex system based on specialization and trade, those who incur a tax liability are not necessarily the ones who bear the burden of the tax. Theoretical and empirical studies show that the corporate income tax is particularly harmful to economic growth, because the burden falls on all of the economy’s productive resources (workers, capital, and entrepreneurs).[8] This is due to the fact that corporations do not pay taxes—individuals do. Corporations are merely an organizing mechanism for productive resources. The CDA’s simulation shows the powerful effects that lessening this burden can have on the U.S. economy.

Karen A. Campbell, Ph.D., is Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics and John L. Ligon is a Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.


mmeyers
  #92  
Old October 16th, 2011, 07:55 AM
tthree tthree is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QFIT View Post
Good. You just keep repeating that companies will pass on taxes with zero evidence or examples.
I know you talk about working for Citigroup. Their business model was so bad they became the first company I refuse to do business with for the rest of my life. It cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars a month in business because some bean counter didn't want me to get 5% a month back on gas purchases but 2% as with my other cards with them. Rather than just canceling my account with or without an explanation, they went back in my history and found the only bill I didn't pay on time and in full, that I wasn't using as a 0% loan, and got it put on my credit report. I was in the hospital on deaths door for a month and had someone else paying my bills. They missed a medical bill from a surgery I just had before my car wreck. A couple months after I got out of the hospital I get a call from a collection agent. I was bed ridden still so he had no problem catching me at home. I explained the situation to him, paid the bill in full at that time and was assured it would never show up on my credit report. Years later Citigroup is trying to dump all its customers from the 5% program so rather than just doing it they decide it would be a better idea to trash my perfect credit over about $3 a month. Well I canceled my 3 personal accounts with them and no longer accepted payment with a citicard for my business. I told people I would if they had no other way to pay but after hearing the story most said they would not use their citicard anywhere in the future if they could help it. It cost them $6,000/month in commissions to save that $3/month for as long as I live. Since the event it has cost them $432,000 in commissions. They really know what they are doing over there at Citigroup. Why does it not surprise me that you learned from them.
  #93  
Old October 16th, 2011, 08:07 AM
tthree tthree is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmeyers View Post
Because the economy is a complex system based on specialization and trade, those who incur a tax liability are not necessarily the ones who bear the burden of the tax. Theoretical and empirical studies show that the corporate income tax is particularly harmful to economic growth, because the burden falls on all of the economy’s productive resources (workers, capital, and entrepreneurs).[8] This is due to the fact that corporations do not pay taxes—individuals do. Corporations are merely an organizing mechanism for productive resources. The CDA’s simulation shows the powerful effects that lessening this burden can have on the U.S. economy.

Karen A. Campbell, Ph.D., is Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics and John L. Ligon is a Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.


mmeyers
You are wasting your time. Q lives by the motto, If you don't like the message attack the messenger.
  #94  
Old October 16th, 2011, 10:26 AM
aslan's Avatar
aslan aslan is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 8,683
Default

Name:  tax topstaturyrate.jpg
Views: 573
Size:  29.9 KB



Myth 2: Corporations pay the corporate income tax.

Fact 2: First, corporations do not pay taxes, only individuals pay taxes. More importantly, economists have shown that a majority of the corporate income tax is borne by labor mainly in the form of lower wages rather than borne by shareholders.


This chart (overly simplified for the Bloomberg discussion) is based on academic work done by Aparna Mathur and Kevin Hassett in December 2010 and shows the link between corporate tax rates and the average manufacturing wage (in U.S. dollars) for 65 countries between 1981 and 2005. It shows a negative link between tax rates and wages, suggesting that higher corporate tax rates lead to lower worker wages. Mathur and Hassett test this point by using regressions controlling for other factors. They find that a 1 percent increase in the corporate income tax leads to almost a 0.5-0.6 percent decrease in hourly wages.

Interestingly, a chart from their original 2006 paper shows that when the sample of countries is restricted to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries, the negative slope is much more pronounced. That implies that higher corporate taxes have a stronger negative impact on wages in developed economies.

This is consistent with a growing body of work [see Arulampalam et al. (2007), Mihir A. Desai, C. Fritz Foley, and James R. Hines (2007), and Felix (2007)] that analyzes actual payroll data to see who in fact is bearing the corporate income tax. Such work finds a large impact of corporate income tax on labor—as high at 200 percent. The theoretical studies that followed found a lower but still large impact on wages from the corporate income tax. These studies show that from 45 to 75 percent of the cost of the corporate tax is borne by labor rather than shareholders, as has long been believed.

Here is the Congressional Budget Office’s William Randolph (2006) for instance:

Burdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares that are reasonable for the U.S. economy. Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax. The domestic owners of capital bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden. Domestic landowners receive a small benefit. At the same time, the foreign owners of capital bear slightly more than 70 percent of the burden, but their burden is exactly offset by the benefits received by foreign workers and landowners.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/0...-the-corporate
  #95  
Old October 16th, 2011, 10:29 AM
shadroch shadroch is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,696
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tthree View Post
I know you talk about working for Citigroup. Their business model was so bad they became the first company I refuse to do business with for the rest of my life. It cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars a month in business because some bean counter didn't want me to get 5% a month back on gas purchases but 2% as with my other cards with them. Rather than just canceling my account with or without an explanation, they went back in my history and found the only bill I didn't pay on time and in full, that I wasn't using as a 0% loan, and got it put on my credit report. I was in the hospital on deaths door for a month and had someone else paying my bills. They missed a medical bill from a surgery I just had before my car wreck. A couple months after I got out of the hospital I get a call from a collection agent. I was bed ridden still so he had no problem catching me at home. I explained the situation to him, paid the bill in full at that time and was assured it would never show up on my credit report. Years later Citigroup is trying to dump all its customers from the 5% program so rather than just doing it they decide it would be a better idea to trash my perfect credit over about $3 a month. Well I canceled my 3 personal accounts with them and no longer accepted payment with a citicard for my business. I told people I would if they had no other way to pay but after hearing the story most said they would not use their citicard anywhere in the future if they could help it. It cost them $6,000/month in commissions to save that $3/month for as long as I live. Since the event it has cost them $432,000 in commissions. They really know what they are doing over there at Citigroup. Why does it not surprise me that you learned from them.
Wowza.
Your business sucks and its all Obamas fault. Your credit sucks and its all Citibanks fault. Way to take responsibility.
Out of curiousity, how do you know when someone is using a Citibank CC?
Just what sort of business do you have? You claim it depends on companies hiring new employees but people try to pay you with credit cards?
$6,000 a month in lost commisions and you are complaining about your business being slow? Forgive me for channeling machinist for a post, but I have a very low tolerence for bullshit.
Just for those who are unfamiliar with card fees, he is claiming he would take in over $200,000 a month from people using Citibank cards but they now pay using other methods. Thats 2.4 MILLION a year, yet a thread can't go by without him blaming the President for his business being slow.
  #96  
Old October 16th, 2011, 10:34 AM
shadroch shadroch is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,696
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aslan View Post
Attachment 8149



Myth 2: Corporations pay the corporate income tax.

Fact 2: First, corporations do not pay taxes, only individuals pay taxes. More importantly, economists have shown that a majority of the corporate income tax is borne by labor mainly in the form of lower wages rather than borne by shareholders.


This chart (overly simplified for the Bloomberg discussion) is based on academic work done by Aparna Mathur and Kevin Hassett in December 2010 and shows the link between corporate tax rates and the average manufacturing wage (in U.S. dollars) for 65 countries between 1981 and 2005. It shows a negative link between tax rates and wages, suggesting that higher corporate tax rates lead to lower worker wages. Mathur and Hassett test this point by using regressions controlling for other factors. They find that a 1 percent increase in the corporate income tax leads to almost a 0.5-0.6 percent decrease in hourly wages.

Interestingly, a chart from their original 2006 paper shows that when the sample of countries is restricted to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries, the negative slope is much more pronounced. That implies that higher corporate taxes have a stronger negative impact on wages in developed economies.

This is consistent with a growing body of work [see Arulampalam et al. (2007), Mihir A. Desai, C. Fritz Foley, and James R. Hines (2007), and Felix (2007)] that analyzes actual payroll data to see who in fact is bearing the corporate income tax. Such work finds a large impact of corporate income tax on labor—as high at 200 percent. The theoretical studies that followed found a lower but still large impact on wages from the corporate income tax. These studies show that from 45 to 75 percent of the cost of the corporate tax is borne by labor rather than shareholders, as has long been believed.

Here is the Congressional Budget Office’s William Randolph (2006) for instance:

Burdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares that are reasonable for the U.S. economy. Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax. The domestic owners of capital bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden. Domestic landowners receive a small benefit. At the same time, the foreign owners of capital bear slightly more than 70 percent of the burden, but their burden is exactly offset by the benefits received by foreign workers and landowners.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/0...-the-corporate
None of which has anything to do with your original premise that high taxes reduce incentives for the company to produce.
  #97  
Old October 16th, 2011, 10:35 AM
shadroch shadroch is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,696
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tthree View Post
You are wasting your time. Q lives by the motto, If you don't like the message attack the messenger.

I'd point out the irony in this but it would go right over your head.
  #98  
Old October 16th, 2011, 11:20 AM
QFIT's Avatar
QFIT QFIT is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NO LONGER HERE
Posts: 2,884
Default

I think it's pretty clear why I "ignore" tthree posts. Nothing but personal attacks.
  #99  
Old October 16th, 2011, 11:38 AM
tthree tthree is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadroch View Post
Wowza.
Your business sucks and its all Obamas fault. Your credit sucks and its all Citibanks fault. Way to take responsibility.
Out of curiousity, how do you know when someone is using a Citibank CC?
Just what sort of business do you have? You claim it depends on companies hiring new employees but people try to pay you with credit cards?
$6,000 a month in lost commisions and you are complaining about your business being slow? Forgive me for channeling machinist for a post, but I have a very low tolerence for bullshit.
Just for those who are unfamiliar with card fees, he is claiming he would take in over $200,000 a month from people using Citibank cards but they now pay using other methods. Thats 2.4 MILLION a year, yet a thread can't go by without him blaming the President for his business being slow.
My business is corporate rental properties. I never said my credit sucked. I said my perfect credit record was trashed in a cowardly and thoughtless way of implementing the sunsetting of a program. I don't ever recall mentioning Obama in hardly any of my comments except occasionally pointing out he is unfairly assigned credit or blame in my posts. It is you and QFIT that are constantly taking criticism of what is passed by congress to be criticism of Obama. You 2 constantly jump in to defend Obama at all cost and to absurdum when he wasn't even mentioned. I do hundreds of thousands of dollars in credit card processing a month. Property taxes are well over $100,000 a year. I do almost $100,000 a year in TV cable and internet and phone usage. I do over $100,000 a year in utilities and there are close to $100,000 in property management fees to the pay each year. I move lots of money around. I won't even get into the mortgage payments. My financial institution of choice gets a ton of business. I simply ask them if they useCitigroup. I thought that was clear from my post.
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:19 PM.


Forum Software vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005-2011 Bayview Strategies LLC