?
@amischiefr said:@tster said:...long rang... The government "stealing" money from companies? Well, you made me laugh more than the front page, congradulations! Saying that companies that produce record profits"need" a tax break is just rediculous. Your skills at making arguments astonish me. Too bad there are no actual policy points here other than "We need to have higher taxes on companies that are successful." Great economoic plan! @amischiefr said:Instead of handing money back to Exon, and various other oil comapnies, why not simply reduce the tax on gas? I'm for reducing all taxes. However, the gas taxes go to paying for roads and road maintenance so I don't think it would be a good tax to cut. Reducing the gas tax would do very little other than slightly increase the amount that people driveand shift the tax burden of paying for roads to the income makers instead of the drivers (which are basically the same group anyways) so it won't make a bit of difference. The little bit of money that it would save consumers ($111.136/person if the federal gas tax was completely eliminated) wouldn't do much of anything to actually help the economy. However, reducing taxes on companies gives them capital to buy new equipment and hire new people, both of which have an actual impact on the economy.By the way, the company is "Exxon," not Exon. Normally I don't correct spelling, but that was twice and it is kind of funny to compare your complete ignorance of free-market economics and the name of one of the best companies in the world. @amischiefr said:However, creating a "fair tax" policy would be much better than just cutting these companies checks once in a while. By writing a better tax policy you would see instant results, by writing a check all you do is buy the CEO and executives a new summer home. I agree completely. That's why I'm for cutting taxes, not doing stupid 1-time tax rebates and bailouts. companies hire based on their projected future need and ability. Cutting taxes will make companies more sure in their future and they will take the opportunity tohire more people and create more wealth. @amischiefr said:...giving them the money back after the fact is NOT going to give you the intended effect: lowering prices to the consumer...The purpose of the tax code is NOT to lower consumer prices. However, if you want proof that lower taxes lower the cost of goods just consider the basics of economics. A company must make a profit to survive. Companies exist in a competitive marketplace. Prices will rise or fall until supply and demand are equal. Raising taxes makes companies less profitable. Hence companies will not be willing to offer their services at as low a price because they will be working just as hard for less money or sometimes a net loss. As companies cut production, supply decreases. Aggregate demand is unchanged by the price of goods and stays the same. However, since the supply has decreased there is now more demand than supply. Price increases until supply and demand are in balance again. Now you have reached another equilibrium at a higher price. This is all first day or Economics 101. It's impossible to show this in the real world because supply and demand are complex and a matter many more variable than tax policy so you can always say, "the price went down for a different reason." Also you have to realize that lower taxes does not automatically make lower prices. What it does is increase supply. That might lower prices, or there might be an increase in aggregate demand that causes price to remain fixed while there are now more of the good or service available. @amischiefr said: How would a fair tax policy punish certain people? I fail to see how having something like a flat consumer taxe and no income tax would be punishing anybody. Sure, the wealthy might pay more taxes than you or I because they purchase more, but aren't they already doing that? I think am for a consumption tax to replace the income tax, but I have not studied it enough to be sure. What I'm against is a graduated income tax. A flat 10% tax would be fine with me.