newzisgud

>The market price is the market price. If corporations could raise prices further (even without new taxes) without losing customers, they would. If corporations end up being taxed more, raising prices in order to "pass on" those taxes will just cause them to lose customers, and end up with lower revenue (and likely profit too), perhaps even more than if they just sucked it up, paid their taxes, and left prices alone.

I agree with part of this. Corporations will raise prices to make more profit whenever there is opportunity to. They exist to make profit, so they will do anything to do that. I also agree that in theory, a small tax increase on one corporation may make them want to take a profit hit versus a customer size hit. However-

- if all the corporations are all paying the same taxes (which hopefully is how it works), they are all able to raise the market price to cover it. They won't have competition - with lower expenses - to lose customer to. The only lost customer will be the one who simply can no longer afford their product.

- Second, as mentioned in other branches, corporations will do anything to protect and increase profit, including finding loopholes, paying the c-suite insane salaries, accounting for asset purchases and depreciations in ways to reduce the on-paper profit, etc. The more the company does this, the more the corporate tax burden becomes a normal cost of goods expense, which is passed on to the customer and the employees (in the form of worse compensation).

Corporations exist to generate profit, they have no other reason for being, and they will do anything to protect those profits - including using any loophole, accounting process, business model, or pricing strategy to protect said profits.

A simple/common form of this subversion is giving the c-suite ungodly salaries such that there are no profits, on the books at least, to be taxed. In that case, and basically all others, the customer is paying the corporate tax because the corporation has shifted all burdens (including tax) away from the protected profit.

If profit is always protected, it really doesn't matter where it ends up going - the fact that profit is protected means that it is an expense passed to the consumer (and employees in the form of low compensation). If anything, like costs, safety, regulation, or even taxes threaten profit, the corporation will re-arrange itself to protect the profit - and everyone else pays for that.

I never imagined a world where there were 0 taxes on corporations. I just said that corporate tax is effectively an individual tax because it never comes out of profit.

You then argue that monetary punishments must behave the same way. They do. Any cost to the company, even when it is monetary or some court judgement, is passed on to the consumer (or the worker, in the form of lower compensation). When was the last time you heard of a monetary fee or judgement causing a company to shut down?

Every company in existence pays corporate insurance specifically to pay out if they have a judgement against them. That insurance premium does not come out of profit. It's a cost, that's passed on to the customer, exactly like any other cost. Profit is always protected.

I'm not aware of any efforts to reduce law enforcement in the DOGE effort or within this administration. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I agree that republicans, probably more than democrats, like to hide behind "free market" to protect their donors from anti-trust, but it's certainly a both-sides problem. I do believe MAGA conservatives are less aligned with traditional republicans / neocons than most believe, as evidenced by the fractures within the GOP over the past three election cycles. But overall I do think you and I are on the same page.

Who 'pockets' the profits is not relevant. Fact is corporations exist to generate profit, and they will do anything to protect those profits - including using any loophole, accounting process, business model, or pricing strategy to protect said profits.

A simple/common form of this subversion is giving the c-suite ungodly salaries such that there are no profits, on the books at least, to be taxed. In that case, and basically all others, the customer is paying the corporate tax because the corporation has shifted all burdens (including tax) away from the protected profit.

Corporations protect their profits above all else. They will lie, cheat, steal, and change their revenue models to protect profits. Customers pay the taxes, just indirectly.

Most of the problems you call out here would be addressed by actually enforcing anti-trust laws, which is something we need to get way better at on both sides of the political isle.

1) I conflated debt vs GDP with spending vs GDP. Debt levels are at WWII levels. I was wrong here, but directionally accurate. We've been spending way too much.

2) USAID has nothing to do with humanitarian efforts. It is not "aid", it is Agency for International Development. Specifically developing "capabilities" in those foreign countries, with "capabilities" being defined as things our intelligence and defense departments can use for their missions. It's not humanitarian. It's international manipulation, with a heaping side of money laundering. Seriously, it's horrible.

4) Employer end of payroll taxes is a thing. Tax on profit is a tax on the customer. Companies would not exist if they are not profitable; they protect profits harder than they protect anything else. Therefore additional costs, including taxes, are passed on to the customer, even if it's indirectly.

The core question is less about the cuts themselves and more about if we the people are getting what we're paying for.

1) It kinda doesn't matter if it was caused by the pandemic or not, what matters is it needs to be fixed. Cherry-picking "since the 1970s" keeps us in difficult times energy-wise which we've attempted to correct for with more spending. If you go further back, our current ratio is what it was during WWII. Do you currently see federal government production as similar to during WWII, or are we not getting value out of what we're spending?

2) Assuming we all agree with those percentages, there's still an obvious 9% to look into. At these levels, that's real money. Also, certain initiatives are way more destructive than the spending would suggest, e.g. just about everything found out about USAID impacts hearts and minds, which impacts further negatively productive efforts outside the federal government.

3) Of course healthcare is on the list. Single-payer systems have their problems, free market systems have their problems, our current hybrid gets the worst of both. So it needs to be addressed, but perhaps not "first" because the answer here is a total rework, whereas there's plenty of other savings available right now as low hanging fruit.

4) Corporations do not pay corporate tax, their customers and employees do. Why should we burden our productive populous with tax on their income, tax on their workplace before they even get paid, inflation due to government spending, etc? If the argument is that tariffs are passed on to the customer, then corporate tax is definitely passed on to the customer and the employee. Additionally, corporations are not currently benefiting from a healthy workforce (look around), or an educated workforce (steady decline since the DoE was established), or a safe environment (go to SF), or a working transportation system in many cases. Again, are we getting what we're paying for?

This... this sounds like a torture device.