Brexit process

[kenneal - lagger]

All taxes paid by corporations are actually paid by the customers included in the price they pay.

Well, some of that tax burden falls to shareholders in reduced dividend and directors and employees in lower pay that might otherwise be the case.

I doubt that much of that tax burden, leastways not a fair share of the burden, falls on shareholders and directors as they have the means to employ fancy accountants to shield them from the any burden. The cost of government falls mostly on the employees who have to pay up through their PAYE as they can't pay accountants to avoid the taxation burden and the fancy accountants who advise the government haven't put any loop holes in the tax laws to enable them to get out of paying tax.

After all someone has to pay for the education, health care, policing, infrastructure and defence costs which enable those shareholders and directors to make a fortune virtually untaxed.

[vtsnowedin]

While the rank and file employees pay taxes those taxes along with the rest of their paycheck has to come from the companies sales of products so comes from the pockets of the customers. Raise corporate or employee taxes and prices will rise to cover it.

[Little John]

While the rank and file employees pay taxes those taxes along with the rest of their paycheck has to come from the companies sales of products so comes from the pockets of the customers. Raise corporate or employee taxes and prices will rise to cover it.

It is not as simplistic as that.

(a) tax large, monopolistic big business commensurately in line with their earnings like anyone else. This has the benefit of ensuring everyone can see that no one can flout the rules and everything is fair. This, in turn, reduces the motivation to commit fraud in society and that is only ever a good thing.

(b) ensure monopoly regulation, alongside fair taxation, to ensure no company hold the rest of the market, not to mention national governments, to ransom.

The above two measures would mean more competition and, as a consequence, a downward pressure on prices.

Though, I do concede, the real problem here that you have outlined, albeit unwittingly, is capitalism. Your economic logic is to some extent internally consistent with an unfettered, unregulated capitalist economic system.

[vtsnowedin]

My position that the customers pay the taxes is fact and simple. Your proposed remedies are more complicated and while needed if they would be successfully implemented would still leave the customer paying all the taxes but perhaps at a fairer level. I won't hold my breath while waiting for your proposals to be put in place.
The trouble with a socialist system is that there is soon no profits to tax.

[clv101]

All taxes paid by corporations are actually paid by the customers included in the price they pay.

Well, some of that tax burden falls to shareholders in reduced dividend and directors and employees in lower pay that might otherwise be the case.

I doubt that much of that tax burden, leastways not a fair share of the burden, falls on shareholders and directors as they have the means to employ fancy accountants to shield them from the any burden. The cost of government falls mostly on the employees who have to pay up through their PAYE as they can't pay accountants to avoid the taxation burden and the fancy accountants who advise the government haven't put any loop holes in the tax laws to enable them to get out of paying tax.

After all someone has to pay for the education, health care, policing, infrastructure and defence costs which enable those shareholders and directors to make a fortune virtually untaxed.

I'm not talking about the tax individuals pay (or don't) on their incomes, I'm talking about higher taxes increasing the cost of business leading to lower dividend (or no dividends at all) and staff being paid less as the company can't afford to pay more.

[vtsnowedin]

Well, some of that tax burden falls to shareholders in reduced dividend and directors and employees in lower pay that might otherwise be the case.

I doubt that much of that tax burden, leastways not a fair share of the burden, falls on shareholders and directors as they have the means to employ fancy accountants to shield them from the any burden. The cost of government falls mostly on the employees who have to pay up through their PAYE as they can't pay accountants to avoid the taxation burden and the fancy accountants who advise the government haven't put any loop holes in the tax laws to enable them to get out of paying tax.

After all someone has to pay for the education, health care, policing, infrastructure and defence costs which enable those shareholders and directors to make a fortune virtually untaxed.

I'm not talking about the tax individuals pay (or don't) on their incomes, I'm talking about higher taxes increasing the cost of business leading to lower dividend (or no dividends at all) and staff being paid less as the company can't afford to pay more.

In that you are correct as increased prices will decrease demand for the produced product. The USA is most probably going to see a very real demonstration of that concept coming from a Biden administration.

[stumuz1]

Though, I do concede, the real problem here that you have outlined, albeit unwittingly, is capitalism. Your economic logic is to some extent internally consistent with an unfettered, unregulated capitalist economic system.

May I just chip in here and observe that the the good ol' US of A, is NOT a capitalist country. It is a captured state;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capture

If Boeing is going to the wall.....printy, printy printy, printy printy, printy........

Money is printed out of thin air and given to the top 2-5%.

Blackrock is being given the freshly printed dollars to buy up distressed bonds. They will eventually own most of the botton half of all dwellings in the US.

You are correct in one sense, the bottom 50% of the earnings pyramid live in a capitalist state, the top 2-5% live in a socialist state.

[vtsnowedin]

Your economic logic is to some extent internally consistent with an unfettered, unregulated capitalist economic system.

While I believe Capitalism is the best and most natural economic system I have never proposed an unfettered unregulated capitalism. If unregulated a capitalist system devolves to monopoly situations and other market abuses that steal from the customers and workers.
There must be effective regulation but it needs to be minimal and as fair and uniformly applied as possible.
I would say a government deciding how much sugar can be in a loaf of bread is going too far by a mile.

[Little John]

Though, I do concede, the real problem here that you have outlined, albeit unwittingly, is capitalism. Your economic logic is to some extent internally consistent with an unfettered, unregulated capitalist economic system.

May I just chip in here and observe that the the good ol' US of A, is NOT a capitalist country. It is a captured state;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capture

If Boeing is going to the wall.....printy, printy printy, printy printy, printy........

Money is printed out of thin air and given to the top 2-5%.

Blackrock is being given the freshly printed dollars to buy up distressed bonds. They will eventually own most of the botton half of all dwellings in the US.

You are correct in one sense, the bottom 50% of the earnings pyramid live in a capitalist state, the top 2-5% live in a socialist state.

Unfettered capitalism always leads to a captured state of faceless plutocrats in much the same way as unfettered socialism always leads to a captured state of faceless bureaucrats.

The problem, in both instances, is too much control of the means of production being concentrated in too few hands.

[kenneal - lagger]

............... I would say a government deciding how much sugar can be in a loaf of bread is going too far by a mile.

But the government isn't deciding how much sugar goes into a loaf of bread it is simply saying that if you put an unnecessary amount of sugar into a loaf of bread you will be expected to pay for the resultant medical costs to the state just as a company who chooses to sell tobacco products does. The decision is with the companies.

[kenneal - lagger]

I doubt that much of that tax burden, leastways not a fair share of the burden, falls on shareholders and directors as they have the means to employ fancy accountants to shield them from the any burden. The cost of government falls mostly on the employees who have to pay up through their PAYE as they can't pay accountants to avoid the taxation burden and the fancy accountants who advise the government haven't put any loop holes in the tax laws to enable them to get out of paying tax.

After all someone has to pay for the education, health care, policing, infrastructure and defence costs which enable those shareholders and directors to make a fortune virtually untaxed.

I'm not talking about the tax individuals pay (or don't) on their incomes, I'm talking about higher taxes increasing the cost of business leading to lower dividend (or no dividends at all) and staff being paid less as the company can't afford to pay more.

In that you are correct as increased prices will decrease demand for the produced product. The USA is most probably going to see a very real demonstration of that concept coming from a Biden administration.

The point I was making isn't about whether or not the taxation comes down to the buyer in the end it is about the distribution of the taxation among the population. What I should have added in is that there should also be a fairer distribution of income tax and also a fairer distribution of income as well.

No one, no matter how hard or cleverly they work, can work hard enough to deserve 400 times the income of their lowest paid employee . And that is what the earning distribution is in most companies now.

We have found that with the covid crisis where the lowest paid employees, probably farm and care workers and hospital cleaners, are the most essential workers that we have. Without them our society would collapse. When would society collapse first? If we did without directors and CEOs or if we took out farm and care workers and cleaners? I would say that in the current situation we can do without those at the top and even in a more normal situation we could do without those at the top for longer than those at the bottom of the wages pyramid

If the tax burden falls entirely on those at the bottom of the pile, through purchase tax and income tax, they have less to spend on stuff so that the foundations of the pile, the spending of those at the bottom, disappears and the whole pyramid collapses. Those at the top of the pyramid have to pay their fair share of tax to allow those at the bottom to be able to prop the pyramid up.

[vtsnowedin]

The point I was making isn't about whether or not the taxation comes down to the buyer in the end it is about the distribution of the taxation among the population. What I should have added in is that there should also be a fairer distribution of income tax and also a fairer distribution of income as well.

No one, no matter how hard or cleverly they work, can work hard enough to deserve 400 times the income of their lowest paid employee . And that is what the earning distribution is in most companies now.

We have found that with the covid crisis where the lowest paid employees, probably farm and care workers and hospital cleaners, are the most essential workers that we have. Without them our society would collapse. When would society collapse first? If we did without directors and CEOs or if we took out farm and care workers and cleaners? I would say that in the current situation we can do without those at the top and even in a more normal situation we could do without those at the top for longer than those at the bottom of the wages pyramid

If the tax burden falls entirely on those at the bottom of the pile, through purchase tax and income tax, they have less to spend on stuff so that the foundations of the pile, the spending of those at the bottom, disappears and the whole pyramid collapses. Those at the top of the pyramid have to pay their fair share of tax to allow those at the bottom to be able to prop the pyramid up.

Well you have to define what is a fair level of taxation and income.
I see a combined state, federal & local income tax rate of over 35% as unfair
After all a top combined rate of 25% would have someone making a billion dollars in a year paying $250 million dollars. That is progressive enough for me.
Then on the income side you would have the inventor of a product worth a billion dollars paid the same as the janitors?
That has been tried and does not work. Back in the days of the Soviet Union some of the satellite republics removed all the bureaucrats and top managers sending them off to retraining /death camps and replaced them with party hacks that had been former field workers.
As they had no training for their new jobs they failed miserably and it quickly deteriorated into corrupt non-productivity. Corruption being easier too learn then management ability.
As a rich person consumes more and more expensive things then a poor person they pay more sales tax and income tax then the poor person and the things and services they buy are bought from the poorer persons so they support them by the jobs they provide.
The pay of essential workers should be increased and their rents (a major component of which is property tax) reduced but that should not come from some increased or new wealth tax.
Now bankers shuffling money around without actually providing any value to their customers and similar operations are another discussion altogether.

[kenneal - lagger]

And a pay differential of 400 to 1 is OK then, VT? Often for a part time directorship?

[vtsnowedin]

And a pay differential of 400 to 1 is OK then, VT? Often for a part time directorship?

The executives pay should be proportionate to the value he or she creates for the stock holders.
I remember when Lee Iaccoca took just a dollar a year in salary but held some large number of shares in his company. When the share holders got paid he got paid.
We have seen execs. come in and within a few years drive the stock price down by half while making millions in salary plus a golden parachute when the board finally dumped them. Why any board allows that kind of thing is beyond me.
I'm not saying there are not abuses in executive pay but government regulation and increased taxation will certainly not make it any better.

[Catweazle]

Why any board allows that kind of thing is beyond me.

Because the board members are eagerly anticipating their own payout, either in that company or the next. Jobs for the boys, old school tie etc..