Interesting email I recieved today......

[Scott Shepherd]

Why they should be rewarded above and beyond what the market will bare, needs to be explained to me.

I'll give that shot, not that it matters, because my opinion doesn't mean much, but here's why they should be rewarded. They came up with the idea, service, product. They invested millions into that said service, product, or market, they spent capital to build buildings for their stores, buildings that contractors built, and people in factories made products for. They took the risk. You didn't. To the flip side of your point, why should you, who have done nothing to create or employee people, all wages, which you pay taxes on, your employees pay taxes on, your trucking companies buy gas to haul, which they pay tax on, why should you get a break and they get nothing in return?

They took all the risk.

Take a look at Circuit City. Are you saying that there was no costumer demand for their products? Their services? Sure there was. But they put some idiot in charge that gutted the company and after 50 years in business, the company disappeared overnight. All the people, all the tax revenue from their payroll, all their trucking expenses and taxes, all their shipping costs, UPS, FedEx, and all of that. All gone. So there was a risk people took, and in that case, they lost.

But they took the risk. Taking that risk employed 100,000's of people over 50 years. That's food on the table, cars in people's driveways, and mortgage payments, all made possible because someone took a risk and started a business.

Those same consumers are out there now, so if the consumer is the deciding factor for driving everything, where'd Circuit City go? The consumers are still there. The consumers had nothing to do with CC going out of business. Their CEO ran the company into the ground because he was an idiot, not because they didn't have products people needed or wanted.

There is a huge return on investment for states giving benefits like you mention. What would you do to have Apple's HQ in your state? Can you image the tax revenue your city or state would have from a company like that? You want me to give you $50,000,000 so I can get a bite of all your sales from now on? I'd take that bet.

[Mike Henderson]

Any company gets the reward that the market will bear. Nothing more, nothing less. When someone builds a successful company, they get rewarded by the market. When they are no longer successful, they disappear. Creative destruction. That's what our economic system is all about, as long as the playing field is level. Companies are constantly trying to tilt the playing field in their favor, either through certain laws or through tax advantages. It's just human nature to try to get those extra advantages. As a country, we need to make sure the playing field is level and no company has an unfair advantage.

Mike

[Whether a company employs two people, or two hundred is immaterial. They need to be successful on a equal playing field. As a county, we've tried to keep sick industries alive but it's never been successful long term. An example is the steel industry in the 1980's.]

[Leo Graywacz]

Any company gets the reward that the market will bear. Nothing more, nothing less. When someone builds a successful company, they get rewarded by the market. When they are no longer successful, they disappear. Creative destruction. That's what our economic system is all about, as long as the playing field is level. Companies are constantly trying to tilt the playing field in their favor, either through certain laws or through tax advantages. It's just human nature to try to get those extra advantages. As a country, we need to make sure the playing field is level and no company has an unfair advantage.

Mike

The playing field hasn't been level in a long time.

[Mike Henderson]

The playing field hasn't been level in a long time.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, whether it be the advantage large companies have over small companies or whether it's between countries. A bit more detail would help.

Mike

[Greg Peterson]

Scott, Mike answered my question. But it was a rhetorical question that I asked. Perhaps that was less than obvious.

More to the point, why should a corporation receive something more than the profits they generate? Why should they not be taxed at the same rate as I or any other wage earner?

There is a very clear under current of anti-worker sentiment simmering in this country these days. Corporations are constantly mistaken as job creators. This is a false assertion with no evidence to the contrary.

Consumers/customers are the job creators. I don't care if you create the greatest whiz bang gadget in the history of mankind. If no one wants it or will buy it, no one will get hired to manufacture it. And if you can get customers and generate a profit, you too get to pay for the services that enable your operations to thrive.

[Leo Graywacz]

Corporate taxes are 35% and they pay half of the employees federal taxes, they have registration and licensing fees and all the rules and regulations to comply to. You sure that is what you want your tax rate to be?

[Greg Peterson]

If I had access to same number of write offs, sure. Our corporate rate is one of the highest in the world. But the write offs are equally numerous leaving many corporations tax liability well into single digits. 35% sounds scary until you start looking at all the deductions.

How many corporations would settle for a flat 18% tax rate in lieu of 35% with all the available write offs?

On the other side of the ledger, I never understood why parents get a tax credit for having kids.

[Leo Graywacz]

The gov has decided they want to push a certain lifestyle to be the norm. You get a mortgage deduction so you want to buy a house. You get a deduction for children so you maintain the population. If you have no children then you get no deduction. But the deduction you get for each child is a pittance to what is required to raise them. I have 2

[Greg Peterson]

Full disclosure: I have a step son and own my home.

Leo, yes kids are expensive. But I don't think the race exactly needs an incentive.

Same for the mortgage deduction. Not sure that would be a deal breaker for most buyers. Of course the average selling price might drop a little.

[Scott Shepherd]

Consumers/customers are the job creators.

And those consumers and customers get their money from who......? Does it magically appear? Do they walk to the mailbox once a week and pull out a handful of cash? Does it rain from the sky and they collect it with a bucket?

They get that money to spend from WORKING for companies. I've said it about 3 times now and no one addresses it. If you increase the burden on an employer, do you think they are just going to absorb the burden and carry on? If you raise taxes on oil, do you think Exxon is going to leave the price the same? If you put a tax on the airline industry do you think your ticket will cost the same? You can't name a single example of when taxes get raised on corporations that they don't directly pass it through to consumers. So if the consumer is the all mighty in your world, how is this "fair share" thing working out for you when you taxed an oil company at the top level and now the poor people that make $20,000 a year pull up to the pump and see $5.00 a gallon gas. At no point does taxing the top level ever NOT hurt the people at the bottom.

If the price of computer chips and hardware goes up, do you think Dell leaves the price the same? Who pays that higher price? The consumers. So explain how raising all these taxes does anything other than cost the little guy, because it doesn't. You're speaking in theory, not reality.

I've never seen a corporate tax that they couldn't find a loophole around.

I used to do a lot of work for Philip Morris. Huge, huge company. Those people were so far ahead of the government it wasn't funny. They had the best lawyers money could buy and I watched them put things in place 3-4 YEARS ahead of what the government did to hurt them. By the time the government got around to passing something, they had already restructured around it so it had no impact. So anything you do is going to go that same route. You want to tax capital gains from them, no problem, they'll find a way to make their balance sheet look like it didn't have any. You'll never get a single penny of that money. Business will outsmart government day after day, week after week, year after year.

I still can't see how taxing the top level does anything but make all of our purchases go up in cost. That's reality.

[Greg Peterson]

Scott

I guess we'll have to call it a draw. It's the age old chicken-egg paradox.

However, I've never witness an employer adding a liability to the payroll account for which that liability was not justified. Never.

Perhaps this not uncommon in Fortune 500 companies, but I have never seen this done within the small business sector. When the landscape guy has more customers than he can handle by himself he hires a worker. When the quickie mart decides it would be profitable to be open 24 hours, they hire someone. When the auto repair shop gets more customers than they can handle, they have to expand and hire more technicians.

[Scott Shepherd]

So still not input on what's going to happen to gas prices at the pump, which affect middle class and poor people, if the oil companies are taxed $1 per gallon? Do you think the prices will stay the same as they are now? If you think the prices will go up at the pump, then you agree with the actions I say will take place if it happens.

If your landscaper example hires more people because he's busy, and suddenly, he has to pay more taxes (his fair share), do you think he's going to leave the prices he charges the same? He'll have less income to pay for the same expenses. So he'll be forced to do one of two things. He'll have to raise his prices or cut the payroll. If he raises prices, who's that hit? The consumer.

In every single example you have cited, if you tax someone more, then the consumer is the one that suffers and pays the bill. I have yet to meet a small business owner, or large business owner that just "sucks it up" and says "I'll eat it".

[Mike Henderson]

So still not input on what's going to happen to gas prices at the pump, which affect middle class and poor people, if the oil companies are taxed $1 per gallon? Do you think the prices will stay the same as they are now? If you think the prices will go up at the pump, then you agree with the actions I say will take place if it happens.

If your landscaper example hires more people because he's busy, and suddenly, he has to pay more taxes (his fair share), do you think he's going to leave the prices he charges the same? He'll have less income to pay for the same expenses. So he'll be forced to do one of two things. He'll have to raise his prices or cut the payroll. If he raises prices, who's that hit? The consumer.

In every single example you have cited, if you tax someone more, then the consumer is the one that suffers and pays the bill. I have yet to meet a small business owner, or large business owner that just "sucks it up" and says "I'll eat it".

Of course, things are not that simple. A business can only raise prices if the consumer is willing to pay. If your competitor will do the job for less, you'll have a hard time raising prices.

But let's examine your assertion a bit more. If you're a business owner and can simply raise prices to pay any additional tax on you, what do you care? If that's true, you should be indifferent to whatever tax was levied on your business.

Perhaps the truth is different. An attempt to raise prices may cause the consumer to purchase less of your product and will affect your profit, which is perhaps why you are so vociferous in your objection to business taxes.

Everyone, including businesses, should pay their fair share of taxes. Your business benefits from the advantages of this country and it's economic system and you should pay your share to support it. The question is "How much?" and that's to be resolved by discussion and compromise.

Your protestations are the usual protestations: that everyone, except me, should be taxed. Every person, every entity, can give lots of reasons why they should not pay taxes.

Mike

[Policies that allow (or encourage) the consumer to spend more will do more for our economic system, will put more people back to work, than anything else. Consumer spending is the driver of job growth.]

[Scott Shepherd]

Your protestations are the usual protestations: that everyone, except me, should be taxed. Every person, every entity, can give lots of reasons why they should not pay taxes.

Mike

[Policies that allow (or encourage) the consumer to spend more will do more for our economic system, will put more people back to work, than anything else. Consumer spending is the driver of job growth.]

Mike, let's stick to the facts here and not make up things I said. I never said a business should not pay any taxes. Never once have I said that or suggested that. What I have said, and what you haven't answered either, is that if you raise taxes on businesses, it isn't going to solve the problem. Did you watch the first video on here that someone posted?

Businesses DO pay taxes. They pay taxes all day long. They pay taxes for their employees too. I know we have to match the payroll taxes, so yes, we're paying taxes. We're also selling items and collecting taxes on that, that we give to the state. We ARE generating income for the government every single day.

My question which continues to remain unanswered, is if you raise the price of fuel, that raises the price of trucking. If you raise the price of trucking, you raise the price of farming and getting food to market. If you raise food prices, you are hurting those that need it most. I haven't seen a company yet eat the cost of high fuel prices. I've asked that question about 4 times now and I have yet to get an answer, instead, I get cast as someone that thinks business should pay zero taxes, which hasn't been uttered from my lips.

You can't tax your way out of the problem. And all those marvelous "spending consumers" you keep mentioning, they all have to get a check from somewhere. Who's giving them the checks so they can keep spending? They are earning those checks at businesses. Hurt the businesses and you'll hurt those people that are getting the checks. Don't believe me, then explain how come the unemployment rates has gone from 4% to 9%. The fact is that businesses have been hurt in the economy, so who suffered? The people that worked for those businesses. So once again, when things get tough on businesses and their numbers aren't hitting, they do what......? They lay people off because they can't afford to keep them and have their numbers look right. So who suffered? Business or the employee? The employee. The business almost never takes it on the chin, the employee almost always takes it on the chin.

[Mike Henderson]

Mike, let's stick to the facts here and not make up things I said. I never said a business should not pay any taxes. Never once have I said that or suggested that. What I have said, and what you haven't answered either, is that if you raise taxes on businesses, it isn't going to solve the problem. Did you watch the first video on here that someone posted?

Businesses DO pay taxes. They pay taxes all day long. They pay taxes for their employees too. I know we have to match the payroll taxes, so yes, we're paying taxes. We're also selling items and collecting taxes on that, that we give to the state. We ARE generating income for the government every single day.

My question which continues to remain unanswered, is if you raise the price of fuel, that raises the price of trucking. If you raise the price of trucking, you raise the price of farming and getting food to market. If you raise food prices, you are hurting those that need it most. I haven't seen a company yet eat the cost of high fuel prices. I've asked that question about 4 times now and I have yet to get an answer, instead, I get cast as someone that thinks business should pay zero taxes, which hasn't been uttered from my lips.

You can't tax your way out of the problem. And all those marvelous "spending consumers" you keep mentioning, they all have to get a check from somewhere. Who's giving them the checks so they can keep spending? They are earning those checks at businesses. Hurt the businesses and you'll hurt those people that are getting the checks. Don't believe me, then explain how come the unemployment rates has gone from 4% to 9%. The fact is that businesses have been hurt in the economy, so who suffered? The people that worked for those businesses. So once again, when things get tough on businesses and their numbers aren't hitting, they do what......? They lay people off because they can't afford to keep them and have their numbers look right. So who suffered? Business or the employee? The employee. The business almost never takes it on the chin, the employee almost always takes it on the chin.

The cost of running the country has to be paid. It seems that you would prefer that it be totally paid by consumers directly. My problem with that is my belief that every person and entity should pay their fair share of the cost of running the country. So if taxes need to be raised, you should pay your fair share of that increase. The burden of those costs should not fall only on the individuals. The amount each entity and person should pay is the subject for debate and compromise.

Mike