Isn't this just a tax break? It's not like we're giving them money

jm, true, but - if their taxes are reduced by a billion, that billion will be replaced by other taxpayers. We're in debt. So, no, we're not giving them money, but we are letting them keep their billion, and it'll come from others of us instead, who will be giving government the money that the corporation used to give it.
And, I agree with you that

I don't mind tax breaks as long as everyone is recieving them, not just a certain class

But McCain's plan and Obama's plan distribute those tax breaks in two very different ways. And for the lower quintiles, it's bread and rent and shoes for the kids...

Isn't this just a tax break? It's not like we're giving them money

jm, true, but - if their taxes are reduced by a billion, that billion will be replaced by other taxpayers. We're in debt. So, no, we're not giving them money, but we are letting them keep their billion, and it'll come from others of us instead, who will be giving government the money that the corporation used to give it.
And, I agree with you that

I don't mind tax breaks as long as everyone is recieving them, not just a certain class

But McCain's plan and Obama's plan distribute those tax breaks in two very different ways. And for the lower quintiles, it's bread and rent and shoes for the kids. For the upper quintiles, its a choice between a yacht or another Italian villa. I think basic needs should be defended more firmly than luxuries should. One group lives close to the edge - the other does not.

Check out this helpful graphic from the Washington Post: McCain and Obama Tax Plans.

I checked the link where this was clipped from, page not found. So I dug a little deeper and this is what I find-


The Center for American Progress is an American liberal political policy research and advocacy organization. Its website describes it as "...a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America that ensures opportunity for all." Its President and Chief Executive Officer is John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to then U.S. President Bill Clinton. Located in Washington, D.C., the Center for American Progress has a campus outreach group, Campus Progress, and a sister advocacy organization, the Center for Am...

I checked the link where this was clipped from, page not found. So I dug a little deeper and this is what I find-


The Center for American Progress is an American liberal political policy research and advocacy organization. Its website describes it as "...a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America that ensures opportunity for all." Its President and Chief Executive Officer is John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to then U.S. President Bill Clinton. Located in Washington, D.C., the Center for American Progress has a campus outreach group, Campus Progress, and a sister advocacy organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Since its inception, the Center has gathered a group of high-profile senior fellows, including Lawrence Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan; Gene Sperling, Director of the National Economic Council under President Bill Clinton; Ruy Teixeira, political scientist and author of The Emerging Democratic Majority; and, most recently, former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former Presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards.

The Center has no information on its Web site about its funding, but the Washington Post reported that "seed money pledged by such deep-pocketed Democrats as regular liberal financier George Soros (and mortgage billionaires Herbert and Marion Sandler)" assisted its formation. The authors of Her Way, a biography of Hillary Clinton, also assert that the Democracy Alliance, a liberal donors collective, has funded the Center. They also assert that the Sandlers and Soros provided seed money.

The Center helped Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) develop "strategic redeployment", a comprehensive plan for Iraq that includes a timetable and troop withdrawals.

[b]So much for non-partisan information. Care to show us another place where this 'Ta

Show me the proof, Smoke. Sounds so good, I know, but it's Republican baloney - it has never happened.

Proof of what? Proof that corporations don't pay any taxes? If you ran a business and you were making a profit, then the cost of doing business went up, what do you think would happen? Would you increase prices or cut costs or both? Or maybe you would just run your business in the red and take the money out of your own pocket to cover the expenses? From a business point of view, taxes are just another expense that must be covered same as the light bill or the payroll.

And it isn't like you can't find a more honest way to get those taxes. A sales tax would still bring in the...

Show me the proof, Smoke. Sounds so good, I know, but it's Republican baloney - it has never happened.

Proof of what? Proof that corporations don't pay any taxes? If you ran a business and you were making a profit, then the cost of doing business went up, what do you think would happen? Would you increase prices or cut costs or both? Or maybe you would just run your business in the red and take the money out of your own pocket to cover the expenses? From a business point of view, taxes are just another expense that must be covered same as the light bill or the payroll.

And it isn't like you can't find a more honest way to get those taxes. A sales tax would still bring in the money. Of course, it might not bring in the votes when the government decides it wants to increase it's own coffers the same way that saying you will tax those evil corporations does. Yet either way you aren't actually taxing the corporation, you are just taxing their product which in the end is just another way of saying you are taxing us.

Oops, sorry, I apparently clipped it from Sage, my RSS reader, rather than the source itself. All the links in the story are live, though, and I think the original story is here.

As to the source, well, naturally no conservative think tank is going to want to point this out. But that the source is not in agreement with you doesn't mean that the source is inaccurate. While I agree that any source's leanings are worth knowing, those leanings don't buy us the privilege of simply writing them off. Unless you see a reason why these data are inaccurate, it's a little cheap to evade the point by claiming them unreliabl...

Oops, sorry, I apparently clipped it from Sage, my RSS reader, rather than the source itself. All the links in the story are live, though, and I think the original story is here.

As to the source, well, naturally no conservative think tank is going to want to point this out. But that the source is not in agreement with you doesn't mean that the source is inaccurate. While I agree that any source's leanings are worth knowing, those leanings don't buy us the privilege of simply writing them off. Unless you see a reason why these data are inaccurate, it's a little cheap to evade the point by claiming them unreliable.

Since part of the story is about personal income tax, I would point out the analysis done by the Washington Post kroqben clipped.

n2, I said nothing about higher prices or fewer jobs; I spoke about competition. You've added a conservative article of faith to my comment.

But there are no generally accepted data that prove that lower taxes decrease prices or diminish jobs. Just as many studies point out that a truly flourishing economy - with jobs and lower prices - comes from periods where taxes are a little higher, the infrastructure needed by business so badly is improved, and standards of living climb across the board.

Consider this paragraph from Lane Kenworthy:

What about the effect of tax changes? As the first chart above indicates, the effe...

n2, I said nothing about higher prices or fewer jobs; I spoke about competition. You've added a conservative article of faith to my comment.

But there are no generally accepted data that prove that lower taxes decrease prices or diminish jobs. Just as many studies point out that a truly flourishing economy - with jobs and lower prices - comes from periods where taxes are a little higher, the infrastructure needed by business so badly is improved, and standards of living climb across the board.

Consider this paragraph from Lane Kenworthy:

What about the effect of tax changes? As the first chart above indicates, the effective tax rate on the top 1% fell sharply between 1979 and 1982. In the five-year period beginning in 1982 the growth rate of per capita GDP averaged 2.6%. By contrast, the effective rate on top incomes jumped appreciably between 1990 and 1995. Yet over the five-year period starting in 1995 the average rate of economic growth was virtually identical: 2.7%.

Right you are that "shrink gov't, lower taxes, grow business" seems so obvious! But it is just too simplistic for the complexity of our economy, and it is easier to demonstrate its effect on income disparity than on increased prosperity across the board.

n2, I said nothing about higher prices or fewer jobs; I spoke about competition. You've added a conservative article of faith to my comment.

You seem to either be confused or intentionally trying to twist the argument. I simply asked what you think a business owner would do with the cost of doing business increases. Because increasing taxes is an increase in the cost of doing business. You somehow tried to twist that around where it has something to do with healthy competition. Taxes have absolutely nothing to do with healthy competition unless it is the lawyer vs lawyer competition of trying to evade an insanely complicated tax code.

And you also seem to be confused about w...

n2, I said nothing about higher prices or fewer jobs; I spoke about competition. You've added a conservative article of faith to my comment.

You seem to either be confused or intentionally trying to twist the argument. I simply asked what you think a business owner would do with the cost of doing business increases. Because increasing taxes is an increase in the cost of doing business. You somehow tried to twist that around where it has something to do with healthy competition. Taxes have absolutely nothing to do with healthy competition unless it is the lawyer vs lawyer competition of trying to evade an insanely complicated tax code.

And you also seem to be confused about what I am advocating when it comes to taxes. I am simply pointing out that companies do NOT pay taxes. The government is simply using companies as a middle man to hide how much they are actually taxing the America people. I didn't say we should cut all those taxes out completely, I simply said we should do away with taxing corporations and if the government feels it still needs that money (and I am sure it does), then they should make it a sales tax. It would be much more fare and much more transparent and the only reason to oppose it is if you believe the American people shouldn't know how much they are really paying in taxes.

They do what businesses do in order to cover expenses and still make a profit. They either cut costs, raise prices, or both. They don't work in a vacuum. If the price of making a product or delivering their service goes up, then they must make adjustments to compensate. So basically yes to your last question, they pass it on to someone else be it the employees or the customers. Non living entities don't pay taxes, one way or another people pay all the taxes.

And that is why I say we, as in the people, would be better off with a sales tax instead of corporate taxes. Then we could see exactly how much we are giving to the government with each and every transaction instead of having it hidden ...

They do what businesses do in order to cover expenses and still make a profit. They either cut costs, raise prices, or both. They don't work in a vacuum. If the price of making a product or delivering their service goes up, then they must make adjustments to compensate. So basically yes to your last question, they pass it on to someone else be it the employees or the customers. Non living entities don't pay taxes, one way or another people pay all the taxes.

And that is why I say we, as in the people, would be better off with a sales tax instead of corporate taxes. Then we could see exactly how much we are giving to the government with each and every transaction instead of having it hidden in the price of the product as it is now. You could be people wouldn't be so eager to tax those evil oil companies if it were tacked on at the end for everyone to see.