So much for ‘Peak Oil’

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

28 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

But you aren't answering the question: "Would you have it that all businesses and individuals simply set their own tax rate?" 

You expect him to answer a serious and substantive question?

 

[brenthutch 444]

9 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

But you aren't answering the question: "Would you have it that all businesses and individuals simply set their own tax rate?" 

No.

[JoeWeber 2,937]

13 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No.

Who then, you?

[brenthutch 444]

“the fact that corporations, while technically paying corporate taxes, don’t bear their ultimate burden (what we call “tax incidence”). Instead, academic research shows that corporate taxes are actually paid by a combination of shareholders, workers, and consumers. A 2020 paper, for example, estimated that “the incidence on consumers, workers, and shareholders is 31 percent, 38 percent, and 31 percent, respectively”—thus showing that corporate taxes aren’t very good at taxing “capital,” and that a substantial share of corporate taxes are simply passed on through retail prices or lower wages”

In a highly regressive manner, especially in the case of consumers and workers.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/taxing-corporations-might-be-good-politics-its-still-bad-policy

 

[olofscience 492]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

corporate taxes are actually paid by a combination of shareholders, workers, and consumers

<face palm>

What do you think corporations are made of? Unicorn farts?

They're controlled by shareholders, and run by workers aren't they?

 

They can't reduce worker wages below legal minimums or risking too much attrition. They can't increase prices too much and lose market share with consumers. So yeah, your post pretty much proves that corporate taxes work. Thanks brent! 

[brenthutch 444]

13 minutes ago, olofscience said:

<face palm>

What do you think corporations are made of? Unicorn farts?

They're controlled by shareholders, and run by workers aren't they?

 

No, Unicorn farts are what power the brains of those who believe windmills and solar panels can prevent bad weather.

I think that putting the vast majority of the corporate tax burden on the shoulders of the proletariat and the consumer is not the outcome most folks would expect when they hear “tax the corporations”

 

 

Edited August 1, 2022 by brenthutch

[olofscience 492]

28 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I think that putting the vast majority of the corporate tax burden on the shoulders of the proletariat and the consumer is not the outcome most folks would expect when they hear “tax the corporations”

You know, it's not really a rebuttal to my point if you just repeat or rephrase the last thing you said. You know that, right?

Edited August 1, 2022 by olofscience

[JoeWeber 2,937]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

“the fact that corporations, while technically paying corporate taxes, don’t bear their ultimate burden (what we call “tax incidence”). Instead, academic research shows that corporate taxes are actually paid by a combination of shareholders, workers, and consumers. A 2020 paper, for example, estimated that “the incidence on consumers, workers, and shareholders is 31 percent, 38 percent, and 31 percent, respectively”—thus showing that corporate taxes aren’t very good at taxing “capital,” and that a substantial share of corporate taxes are simply passed on through retail prices or lower wages”

In a highly regressive manner, especially in the case of consumers and workers.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/taxing-corporations-might-be-good-politics-its-still-bad-policy

 

You have officially lost your novelty.

[olofscience 492]

In fact, according to brent's link, shareholders (31%) and workers (38%) total 69% - a majority - of a tax increase.

And a corporation is basically made of shareholders and workers.

See how he uses words like "proletariat" to try to confuse people into taking his side when the numbers actually make the opposite argument. 

[brenthutch 444]

3 hours ago, olofscience said:

In fact, according to brent's link, shareholders (31%) and workers (38%) total 69% - a majority - of a tax increase.

And a corporation is basically made of shareholders and workers.

See how he uses words like "proletariat" to try to confuse people into taking his side when the numbers actually make the opposite argument. 

Consumers 31% workers 38% total 69%.  Less than a third of the tax burden falls on those greedy capitalists, the rest falls on the consumer and workers in the form of higher costs and suppressed wages. A highly regressive tax.
(I didn’t mean to confuse with a big word like ‘proletariat’, it means ‘wage earners’)

[olofscience 492]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

and workers in the form of higher costs and suppressed wages. A highly regressive tax.

You mean company employees and executives?

You can protect them with laws for a good minimum wage and laws that protect collective bargaining.

And no, I wasn't confused, nor was anyone else, except you.

[olofscience 492]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Less than a third of the tax burden falls on those greedy capitalists, the rest falls on the consumer and workers

Struggling to lie out of this one eh?

We're all capitalists. You're just trying to substitute it for "shareholders" because you got caught out.

Plus, many workers/employees are also shareholders themselves. So the definition of workers is too vague to even assign to the lowest wage earners, but vagueness and confusion suits you doesn't it? Without them the truth is way too visible.

Edited August 1, 2022 by olofscience

[brenthutch 444]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

Plus, many workers/employees are also shareholders themselves. 

Most do not, and the ones that do get hit with the double whammy of lower wages and a lower ROI. You are still ignoring the nearly one third of corporate taxes passed on to consumers.  If the goal is to lower inflation additional taxes on goods and services is an odd way to accomplish it.  What they should do is ‘drill baby drill’ and deregulate the oil and gas industries to increase the supply and reduce costs.  Lower energy costs will result in lower costs throughout the economy; lower transportation cost, lower agricultural costs, lower industrial input cost, lower utilities etc.

[olofscience 492]

8 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Most do not,

So we can protect them with better employee protection laws and collective bargaining.

8 hours ago, brenthutch said:

You are still ignoring the nearly one third of corporate taxes passed on to consumers.

No, you ignored my suggestion of protecting consumers with better pricing laws and consumer protection laws.

8 hours ago, brenthutch said:

What they should do is ‘drill baby drill’ and deregulate the oil and gas industries to increase the supply and reduce costs.

But the oil companies are already making record profits. Why can't they lower prices now?

Edit to add: I know a lot of people in the oil and gas industry, and they're really enjoying the dividends now. But none of them shill anywhere as hard as brent for giving more breaks to the industry, he's like a teenage kpop fan when it comes to fossil fuels 

Edited August 2, 2022 by olofscience

[olofscience 492]

Just to add sources on how stupid it is to think that oil companies are struggling with their margins and deregulating would lower costs:

BP reports highest quarterly profit in 14 years

Shell smashes record again with $11.5 bln profit

[brenthutch 444]

2 hours ago, olofscience said:

So we can protect them with better employee protection laws and collective bargaining.

No, you ignored my suggestion of protecting consumers with better pricing laws and consumer protection laws.

But the oil companies are already making record profits. Why can't they lower prices now?

You never took an economics class in your life and it shows. 

[jakee 1,594]

16 hours ago, brenthutch said:

(I didn’t mean to confuse with a big word like ‘proletariat’, it means ‘wage earners’)

Errrm no. Not exactly. Otherwise there are a lot of rather wealthy proles out there these days.

[jakee 1,594]

10 hours ago, brenthutch said:

What they should do is ‘drill baby drill’ and deregulate the oil and gas industries to increase the supply and reduce costs.

Right…. Because what Shell, BP etc really want at this moment is to be allowed to do more work for less profit. 
 

What did you just say about economics?

[brenthutch 444]

9 minutes ago, jakee said:

Right…. Because what Shell, BP etc really want at this moment is to be allowed to do more work for less profit. 
 

What did you just say about economics?

Lower profit margin but more profit.  Please don’t make me have to explain that to you.

 

[jakee 1,594]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Lower profit margin but more profit.  Please don’t make me have to explain that to you.

Please do try and explain it. A restriction in supply has caused soaring prices and record profits, so easing that restriction will result in lower prices and, um, what exactly?

[Phil1111 1,174]

On 7/31/2022 at 5:46 PM, brenthutch said:

Joe, who do you think will pay the billions in cooperate taxes?  Do you really believe executive competition will be slashed?  Do you really think dividends will be eliminated?  Don’t you realize those taxes will just be passed on to consumers further exasperating inflation. (Not to mention driving industries and jobs overseas)The University of Pennsylvania Wharton school said it would make inflation WORSE not better.  All the while wasting billions on green energy boondoggles that will not have ANY impact on CO2 levels or weather.

If that was the case and true. Why did consumer prices increase when the trump tax cuts when through in the last five years? Why did executive compensation skyrocket during the last five years? Here is your "Wharton Answer"

"The Penn Wharton Budget Model analysis projects that the Senate Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will reduce tax revenues by roughly $1.3 to $1.5 trillion by 2027, with the economy growing 0.8 percent larger over these first 10 years relative to current policy. The boost to GDP that the tax cuts produce will offset about $275 billion of their more than $1 trillion cost, the model projects, and the GDP boost will continue to diminish over time. By 2040, GDP will be between 0.2 percent to 1.2 percent larger relative to no tax changes, with revenues falling between $1.1 trillion and $2.1 trillion. Put simply, the model’s analysis finds that not only will the Senate tax plan not pay for itself, but it will add more than $1 trillion to the nation’s deficit in the next ten years."

Why are you trying to pull the wool over Joe and Bill's eyes. Do you have no respect for anyone?

[brenthutch 444]

27 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

If that was the case and true. Why did consumer prices increase when the trump tax cuts when through in the last five years? Why did executive compensation skyrocket during the last five years? Here is your "Wharton Answer"

"The Penn Wharton Budget Model analysis projects that the Senate Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will reduce tax revenues by roughly $1.3 to $1.5 trillion by 2027, with the economy growing 0.8 percent larger over these first 10 years relative to current policy. The boost to GDP that the tax cuts produce will offset about $275 billion of their more than $1 trillion cost, the model projects, and the GDP boost will continue to diminish over time. By 2040, GDP will be between 0.2 percent to 1.2 percent larger relative to no tax changes, with revenues falling between $1.1 trillion and $2.1 trillion. Put simply, the model’s analysis finds that not only will the Senate tax plan not pay for itself, but it will add more than $1 trillion to the nation’s deficit in the next ten years."

Why are you trying to pull the wool over Joe and Bill's eyes. Do you have no respect for anyone?

Why are you conflating tax burden distribution with GDP?

[brenthutch 444]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Please do try and explain it. A restriction in supply has caused soaring prices and record profits, so easing that restriction will result in lower prices and, um, what exactly?

Ring the bell! Class is in session. 
If you can only produce 10 widgets at a cost of $5 per because of regulatory and supply constraints and the market price of those widgets is $10. You will have doubled your money and made $50

If those supply and regulatory constraints are eased you could produce 100 widgets at $5 per (to keep it simple we will ignore the reduced input and production cost from deregulation and keep it at $5 per widget). Because of increased supply you can now only sell your widgets for $7.50.  While your profit margin had been slashed your total profit has greatly increased while reducing the price for the consumer 

Class dismissed 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by brenthutch

[olofscience 492]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

You never took an economics class in your life and it shows. 

You don't know how to read and it shows. From my link with Shell's record profit:

Quote

Refining profit margins tripled in the quarter to $28 a barrel.

What you said:

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Lower profit margin but more profit.  Please don’t make me have to explain that to you.

You're just making stuff up now aren't you.

[brenthutch 444]

5 minutes ago, olofscience said:

You don't know how to read and it shows. From my link with Shell's record profit:

What you said:

You're just making stuff up now aren't you.

Apparently you don’t understand the difference between profit and profit margin.  Please attend my little class posted above.

Edited August 2, 2022 by brenthutch