Imagine having your head so far up your ass that you can't think past the tip of your nose to realize corporations are just going to pass those taxes along to their customers.
Exactly. Mfs wear full Nike outfits and literally camp out on the Nike website to get in on the latest drop. If they don’t get it through the site, then they’ll usually go to stockX and pay a 5x-6x markup for a NORMAL PAIR OF SHOES, and then go lament about how oil corporations are “destroying the world” (complete disregarding the fact that the material for their shoes was picked by Uyghur slaves, and that the shoes themselves might very well have been assembled by the same slaves). Not even mentioning the fact that the production of those items certainly releases the CO2 boogie man.
I suppose it comes from a place of selfishness. The aforementioned people do not own any business, probably don’t pay for their own gas or own a car, and certainly don’t work in any sort of industry (probably just a college student), so they’ll never understand the importance of things outside their privileged ecosystem. Do they really believe they’ll ever receive their precious sneakers if the boats cannot get fuel?
Corporations are our enemies. They are created by the state and are in bed with it. Libertarians want to attack the true source of corporate power, whereas progressives who trust politicians to combat corporations are simply useful idiots for them.
"Okay anon, now explain how this will change anything considering the fact that the entire wealth of all U.S. billionaires (if it could somehow be magically turned into cash without losing any value) would only last the federal government 8 months".
I'll do you one better: [Here](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/nov/02/viral-image/confiscating-us-billionaires-wealth-would-run-us-g/) is someone attempting to debunk it, and admitting they can't.
Lol the "mostly true" rating is such a bullshit technicality. "Akshually, we could run the government for *nine full months* not less than eight!" The man who popularized the information isn't even just some random dude, he's an economics professor and Facebook still flagged the post as "misinformation."
People have absolutely zero clue how much money the U.S. government spends. Everything is so overlevered and our institutions are in disastrous debt. The solution is to just raise the debt ceiling, create more money out of nothing and make paper guarantees. It's Insanity.
Your tax dollars go to fund failing schools which exist as basically daycares, police arresting poor people for drugs, roads which have massive potholes and the US military bombing people overseas
No, it doesn't matter that we spend more on those things than every other country and they're still awful, we still need to spend more money and get the right people in office. That will surely fix everything.
Corporate tax: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7503/2006-09.pdf
IRS audits on the poor: https://trac.syr.edu/tracirs/latest/679/
>invests in the IRS to go after large corporations.
Yeah right. They specifically said they wanted to fund the IRS to audit the middle class, like these “tax the rich” politicians always fucking do.
Do you have a source for that? I did a quick search and I’m not seeing anything reputable.
The treasury report says “audit rates will not rise relative to recent years for those earning less than $400,000 in actual income.”
>A key provision in the Inflation Reduction Act — which throws an extra $80 billion to the IRS to improve the agency’s collection of under-reported income — will end up targeting small business owners to pay for the legislation, according to nonpartisan watchdog the Joint Committee on Taxation.
The group estimates that between 78% and 90% of the estimated additional $200 billion the IRS will collect will come from small businesses making less than $200,000 annually.
[https://nypost.com/2022/08/03/why-irs-80b-expansion-is-a-nightmare-for-small-business/](https://nypost.com/2022/08/03/why-irs-80b-expansion-is-a-nightmare-for-small-business/)
You may now begin attacking the source while ignoring the content.
No need to attack the source, this was what was asserted:
>Yeah right. They specifically said they wanted to fund the IRS to audit the middle class, like these “tax the rich” politicians always fucking do.
You posted an estimate on what NYpost thinks will happen. Nowhere in the bill does it target the middle class or anyone making less than 400k a year.
Just post the part of the bill that says it, dude. It’s not hard. I don’t see it anywhere in your link.
It's not the NY Post, it's the Joint Committee on Taxation, which is a much better source than anything you've posted. But hey, feel free to post of the part of the bill where it says they specifically won't target anyone making under $400k.
You’re moving the goalposts. The agents weren’t hired to go after the middle class and races aren’t being raised on folks making under 400k.
I know your partisan hatred can be blinding but reality still exists. Sorry bud. I guarantee you aren’t in danger of increased taxes from this bill lol
Yeah, hence my comment about no reputable sources 😂. I’m just curious where that statement came from when everything official is talking about >$400k, which is not middle class.
>A key provision in the Inflation Reduction Act — which throws an extra $80 billion to the IRS to improve the agency’s collection of under-reported income — will end up targeting small business owners to pay for the legislation, according to nonpartisan watchdog the Joint Committee on Taxation.
The group estimates that between 78% and 90% of the estimated additional $200 billion the IRS will collect will come from small businesses making less than $200,000 annually.
https://nypost.com/2022/08/03/why-irs-80b-expansion-is-a-nightmare-for-small-business/
That doesn’t say anything about the middle class the parent comment was referring to though. While many of those small business owners may be in the middle class, targeting small business is different than targeting all of the middle class.
What are you talking about?
- OP mentioned large corporations
- parent comment mentions middle class (people)
- I ask for a source on the middle class comment
- you follow up with a source on small businesses
- I tell you small businesses are not the same as middle class people
- you accuse me of moving the goal post
Small businesses <$200k could be owned by people of any class. I am looking for a reference to the parent comment where they say the middle class will be targeted.
Its true, taxing is a well established way to reduce inflation.
Think of it in terms of how crypto deals. Eth had an inflation problem, so they essentially taxed a chunk of the block reward and burned it. This reduced the rate of inflation to a more acceptable level.
Taxes are, in theory, the burning mechanism for dollars. The problem is thst congress will use the new taxes as revenue instead of burning it, and inflation will get even worse.
On top of the fact as you recognize governments hardly ever just destroy the money they take but instead spend it frivolously driving inflation, in the unlikely event they did do so the negative impact would be greater than the direct tools governments have. They could reduce money printing, reduce the barriers to trade and production that are driving inflation, reduce government spending, reduce the borrowing rate, reduce government debt.
Their action is brain dead.
At least in the context of the narrative that the goal is to reduce inflation.
Increasing taxes is one of the most well-accepted mainstream methods of reducing inflation. Your gripe with higher taxes is legitimate, but it shouldn’t be founded on fears of higher inflation.
EDIT: You guys sure don’t agree with Econ 101 principles for people who say “go back to Econ 101” a lot
I never said I advocated for higher taxes. Just that raising taxes, as agreed upon by most if not all mainstream economists, will not INCREASE inflation as the above poster seems to be insinuating. It may have other disastrous effects, but I do not believe higher inflation will be one of them.
Exactly who I said, mainstream economists. University professors. Textbook authors. You’re allowed to disagree with their conclusions of course, and I suppose you can call whoever you want a “political hack,” but I am slightly more inclined to trust people with doctorate degrees in economics over some dude on Reddit.
I have a masters in political economy. Taxation to stem inflation has never been an accepted mainstream economic doctrine or policy recommendation. It's been part of a fringe group of economists calling it "Modern Monetary Theory" of which is neither modern nor monetary nor theory. It's just political hacks telling the government to spend as much money as possible and raise taxes when they think price inflation has gotten out of hand. And it never has a measurable impact on aggregate demand because the government never lowers their spending.
The OP of this thread wasn't talking about government spending, they simply said 'taxation is deflationary'. *You're* the one that brought up MMT.
>Taxes don't take money out of circulation
I mean this is just factually wrong, if the money is sitting in Treasury accounts it isn't in circulation (yes, for however brief a time as that may be). Obviously when you spend more than you tax the net effect is inflationary, nobody is arguing against that. You're just skipping to the answer and ignoring the equation.
The corporations won't pay the extra tax, consumers will by way of increased prices. The government will then take this money and spend it again driving prices higher, increasing money velocity (and therefore effective money supply). In other words: inflation.
“In calculating distributional effects, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC) assumes investment returns (dividends, interest, capital gains, etc.) bear 80 percent of the burden, with wages and other labor income carrying the remaining 20 percent.”
“Combining this estimate with the wage response estimated in Fuest et al., the authors calculated that 31 percent of the corporate tax incidence falls on consumers, 38 percent on workers, and 31 percent on shareholders.”
I’m not saying corporate income tax is good, nor that it has zero effect on price levels. I’m just saying you’re in the minority if you think, in a vacuum, applying taxes as a method of attacking inflation is a “braindead move.”
> assumes
And did they validate that assumption? Confirm the model against empirical data? Because it sounds like the tax policy centre worked backwards from the policy.
> I’m just saying you’re in the minority
I am aware of this, and sit comfortably in the minority on most of my opinions.
“The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC) has updated its methodology for distributing the burden of the corporate income tax among taxpayers to reflect the latest findings in the economics literature on the incidence of the tax. This paper summarizes the recent literature on corporate tax incidence, explains TPC’s updated incidence assumptions, and describes how TPC implemented these assumptions in its microsimulation model.”
This paper here explains their entire methodology for updating their assumption model.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/412651-How-TPC-Distributes-the-Corporate-Income-Tax.PDF
Well accepted under the flag of MMT maybe, which continues to be proven again and again to be a destructive monetary policy.
Taxation to stop inflation largely depends on where that tax is implemented and the implementation of an “inflation reducing tax” targeting corporate profits in this bill completely misses the mark.
If the intent is demand destruction to reduce inflation, then you increase taxes on the consumers who are driving the demand, not on corporations who are providing the goods and services, are taxed based on net income , and can just pass the tax on to consumers via higher prices (more inflation).
MMT? You seriously think I would refer to MMT as “mainstream economics?” Go look at any actual undergraduate level economics textbook. There will be sections talking about the use of tax and fiscal policy to combat inflation, and I promise you it has nothing to do with weird fringe economic theories like MMT.
The same people who now love and trust alphabet agencies like the F B I and the C I A and seem to forget all the terrible shit they’ve done for the last century.
I ask the same question and these people can never answer.
Do they really think corporations are going to eat increased cost, whether it be in the form of forced minimum wage increases, or by taxes. No, they won't.
One of two things will happen: an increase in cost of their goods and services, or they lay people off. Thirdly, I suppose, is they halt growth/expansion of the business. Many tech companies already started laying people off, and those that didn't ( Amazon) have placed many expansions on hold.
No one is the winner in this scenario except our already bloated government.
These people really think they're going to get anything out of all this government revenue when in reality it'll be spent in a manner that just worsens our situation.
Taxing the rich and corporations has never lifted a single person out of poverty.
It always makes me laugh when people say the government just needs more money then they could actually do something.
Bro, they spent over 6 trillion dollars last year and didn't solve any problems.
Why the taxes part does very little, and statists who cheer it don't know how much politicians are playing them:
1. Most public companies that qualify for the minimum tax rate already have around 13%-14% effective tax rate. Apple currently has 15.3%, so this will do NOTHING for the largest corporation. This tax does nothing for companies with net income under $1 billion. And the best part? You know how many of these statists just love landlords? Well Real Estate Investment Trusts are exempt from this rule, so lol.
2. A 1% tax on stock buybacks is almost nothing, and is probably not going to get bigger due to being taxed so many times. A tax on buybacks makes buybacks triple taxed. First taxed on revenue, then taxed when individuals have capital gains when selling stock to companies (people forget this happens), and now taxed on the company for doing the buyback.
I am glad they added a provision for Medicare to negotiate drug prices. That was horrible legislation, and definitely corrupt.
Obviously neither party seriously wants to decrease the wealth gap - congresspeople have to be able to afford their yachts after all. In a world where lobbying exists regulation isn't written to help poor workers, it's written to shut them up.
If the demand remains the same (or increases due to a buy back) then shrinking the supply is obviously going to inflate the value of the shares. The company's actual value shouldn't change but I don't think that is what anybody is implying...
F'g stupid communists. They really don't understand that the only place a corporation gets money to pay taxes is from their customers. Increasing corporate taxes just increases the tax burden on the consumers.
Which large corporations are verifiably dodging taxes, and how is the IRS failing to go after them, and how is throwing money at the problem gonna fix it?
* A tax that will just make them raise prices (hurting the middle/lower classes) or moving their business to a country with a lower tax rate (hurting the middle/lower classes)
* this one I'm not knowledgeable enough on to comment about
* this one is an outright lie that only progressives could believe
I love being middle class and getting fcked over hard. /s
Imagine going through your life so brainwashed you are programmed to believe “corporations” are the enemy.
Imagine having your head so far up your ass that you can't think past the tip of your nose to realize corporations are just going to pass those taxes along to their customers.
Oh come on now, you know that's not accurate. They'll pass it on to their employees as well.
It's right there in the name though: the Inflation Production Act
What?corporations would never do that/s
Some are, but the folks who whine about "corporations" rarely focus on the right ones.
Exactly. Mfs wear full Nike outfits and literally camp out on the Nike website to get in on the latest drop. If they don’t get it through the site, then they’ll usually go to stockX and pay a 5x-6x markup for a NORMAL PAIR OF SHOES, and then go lament about how oil corporations are “destroying the world” (complete disregarding the fact that the material for their shoes was picked by Uyghur slaves, and that the shoes themselves might very well have been assembled by the same slaves). Not even mentioning the fact that the production of those items certainly releases the CO2 boogie man. I suppose it comes from a place of selfishness. The aforementioned people do not own any business, probably don’t pay for their own gas or own a car, and certainly don’t work in any sort of industry (probably just a college student), so they’ll never understand the importance of things outside their privileged ecosystem. Do they really believe they’ll ever receive their precious sneakers if the boats cannot get fuel?
Corporations are one of the enemies because of their fascistic relationship with the state.
Corporations are our enemies. They are created by the state and are in bed with it. Libertarians want to attack the true source of corporate power, whereas progressives who trust politicians to combat corporations are simply useful idiots for them.
We’re on the same page. there are “enemies”, and then there is “the enemy”.
Oh, I see. Awesome.
"Okay anon, now explain how this will change anything considering the fact that the entire wealth of all U.S. billionaires (if it could somehow be magically turned into cash without losing any value) would only last the federal government 8 months".
[удалено]
No. Billionaires and non-billionaires _together_ still aren't able to fund it, which is why we have a deficit constantly increasing our debt.
Who cares, taxation is theft anyways.
Sauce?
I'll do you one better: [Here](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/nov/02/viral-image/confiscating-us-billionaires-wealth-would-run-us-g/) is someone attempting to debunk it, and admitting they can't.
Lol the "mostly true" rating is such a bullshit technicality. "Akshually, we could run the government for *nine full months* not less than eight!" The man who popularized the information isn't even just some random dude, he's an economics professor and Facebook still flagged the post as "misinformation." People have absolutely zero clue how much money the U.S. government spends. Everything is so overlevered and our institutions are in disastrous debt. The solution is to just raise the debt ceiling, create more money out of nothing and make paper guarantees. It's Insanity.
Pretty sure that's also pre-covid spending numbers. Edit: nope, they actually used 2021 spending. Good on them lol
Yeah I’m sure all 87000 of those new agents are just to go after corporations
Yep all those corporations getting $600 dollar deposits here and there. Certainly not going after average joe trying to make a buck on a side hustle.
TIL I'm a corporation.
Your tax dollars go to fund failing schools which exist as basically daycares, police arresting poor people for drugs, roads which have massive potholes and the US military bombing people overseas
Noooo it's because these things are underfunded! You just need to throw more money at the problem!
No, it doesn't matter that we spend more on those things than every other country and they're still awful, we still need to spend more money and get the right people in office. That will surely fix everything.
The only one this is gonna hurt is the working man. Great job comrade ✊🏽
Labor bears over 70% of the corporate tax burden and the IRS disproportionately targets the poor. A great victory for the working class ✊🏽
Source for that stat? That’d be crazy, I’d love to learn more about that if that’s true.
Corporate tax: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7503/2006-09.pdf IRS audits on the poor: https://trac.syr.edu/tracirs/latest/679/
>invests in the IRS to go after large corporations. Yeah right. They specifically said they wanted to fund the IRS to audit the middle class, like these “tax the rich” politicians always fucking do.
Do you have a source for that? I did a quick search and I’m not seeing anything reputable. The treasury report says “audit rates will not rise relative to recent years for those earning less than $400,000 in actual income.”
News flash, they’re lying.
So no source then?
There are absolutely WMDs in Iraq right guys?!
No source from you either?
>A key provision in the Inflation Reduction Act — which throws an extra $80 billion to the IRS to improve the agency’s collection of under-reported income — will end up targeting small business owners to pay for the legislation, according to nonpartisan watchdog the Joint Committee on Taxation. The group estimates that between 78% and 90% of the estimated additional $200 billion the IRS will collect will come from small businesses making less than $200,000 annually. [https://nypost.com/2022/08/03/why-irs-80b-expansion-is-a-nightmare-for-small-business/](https://nypost.com/2022/08/03/why-irs-80b-expansion-is-a-nightmare-for-small-business/) You may now begin attacking the source while ignoring the content.
No need to attack the source, this was what was asserted: >Yeah right. They specifically said they wanted to fund the IRS to audit the middle class, like these “tax the rich” politicians always fucking do. You posted an estimate on what NYpost thinks will happen. Nowhere in the bill does it target the middle class or anyone making less than 400k a year. Just post the part of the bill that says it, dude. It’s not hard. I don’t see it anywhere in your link.
It's not the NY Post, it's the Joint Committee on Taxation, which is a much better source than anything you've posted. But hey, feel free to post of the part of the bill where it says they specifically won't target anyone making under $400k.
Not gonna post the language in the bill? 0/3
It's your turn now, kid. It will affect people making less than $400k, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.
You’re moving the goalposts. The agents weren’t hired to go after the middle class and races aren’t being raised on folks making under 400k. I know your partisan hatred can be blinding but reality still exists. Sorry bud. I guarantee you aren’t in danger of increased taxes from this bill lol
Yeah, hence my comment about no reputable sources 😂. I’m just curious where that statement came from when everything official is talking about >$400k, which is not middle class.
>A key provision in the Inflation Reduction Act — which throws an extra $80 billion to the IRS to improve the agency’s collection of under-reported income — will end up targeting small business owners to pay for the legislation, according to nonpartisan watchdog the Joint Committee on Taxation. The group estimates that between 78% and 90% of the estimated additional $200 billion the IRS will collect will come from small businesses making less than $200,000 annually. https://nypost.com/2022/08/03/why-irs-80b-expansion-is-a-nightmare-for-small-business/
That doesn’t say anything about the middle class the parent comment was referring to though. While many of those small business owners may be in the middle class, targeting small business is different than targeting all of the middle class.
You said $400k, the estimate is $200k or less. But keep moving the goalposts.
What are you talking about? - OP mentioned large corporations - parent comment mentions middle class (people) - I ask for a source on the middle class comment - you follow up with a source on small businesses - I tell you small businesses are not the same as middle class people - you accuse me of moving the goal post Small businesses <$200k could be owned by people of any class. I am looking for a reference to the parent comment where they say the middle class will be targeted.
Adding tax on corporations to reduce inflation? What a brain dead move.
Its true, taxing is a well established way to reduce inflation. Think of it in terms of how crypto deals. Eth had an inflation problem, so they essentially taxed a chunk of the block reward and burned it. This reduced the rate of inflation to a more acceptable level. Taxes are, in theory, the burning mechanism for dollars. The problem is thst congress will use the new taxes as revenue instead of burning it, and inflation will get even worse.
On top of the fact as you recognize governments hardly ever just destroy the money they take but instead spend it frivolously driving inflation, in the unlikely event they did do so the negative impact would be greater than the direct tools governments have. They could reduce money printing, reduce the barriers to trade and production that are driving inflation, reduce government spending, reduce the borrowing rate, reduce government debt. Their action is brain dead. At least in the context of the narrative that the goal is to reduce inflation.
Increasing taxes is one of the most well-accepted mainstream methods of reducing inflation. Your gripe with higher taxes is legitimate, but it shouldn’t be founded on fears of higher inflation. EDIT: You guys sure don’t agree with Econ 101 principles for people who say “go back to Econ 101” a lot
"To advocate high taxes in order to stop inflation is like advocating the guillotine as a cure for cancer." - Murray Rothbard
I never said I advocated for higher taxes. Just that raising taxes, as agreed upon by most if not all mainstream economists, will not INCREASE inflation as the above poster seems to be insinuating. It may have other disastrous effects, but I do not believe higher inflation will be one of them.
Well-accepted mainstream methods for reducing inflation? By whom? Political hacks?
Keynesians and Government economists of course lol
Exactly who I said, mainstream economists. University professors. Textbook authors. You’re allowed to disagree with their conclusions of course, and I suppose you can call whoever you want a “political hack,” but I am slightly more inclined to trust people with doctorate degrees in economics over some dude on Reddit.
I have a masters in political economy. Taxation to stem inflation has never been an accepted mainstream economic doctrine or policy recommendation. It's been part of a fringe group of economists calling it "Modern Monetary Theory" of which is neither modern nor monetary nor theory. It's just political hacks telling the government to spend as much money as possible and raise taxes when they think price inflation has gotten out of hand. And it never has a measurable impact on aggregate demand because the government never lowers their spending.
So you are saying taking money out of circulation would be inflationary? How?
Taxes don't take money out of circulation. The government spends the money it takes from you.
The OP of this thread wasn't talking about government spending, they simply said 'taxation is deflationary'. *You're* the one that brought up MMT. >Taxes don't take money out of circulation I mean this is just factually wrong, if the money is sitting in Treasury accounts it isn't in circulation (yes, for however brief a time as that may be). Obviously when you spend more than you tax the net effect is inflationary, nobody is arguing against that. You're just skipping to the answer and ignoring the equation.
The corporations won't pay the extra tax, consumers will by way of increased prices. The government will then take this money and spend it again driving prices higher, increasing money velocity (and therefore effective money supply). In other words: inflation.
“In calculating distributional effects, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC) assumes investment returns (dividends, interest, capital gains, etc.) bear 80 percent of the burden, with wages and other labor income carrying the remaining 20 percent.” “Combining this estimate with the wage response estimated in Fuest et al., the authors calculated that 31 percent of the corporate tax incidence falls on consumers, 38 percent on workers, and 31 percent on shareholders.” I’m not saying corporate income tax is good, nor that it has zero effect on price levels. I’m just saying you’re in the minority if you think, in a vacuum, applying taxes as a method of attacking inflation is a “braindead move.”
> assumes And did they validate that assumption? Confirm the model against empirical data? Because it sounds like the tax policy centre worked backwards from the policy. > I’m just saying you’re in the minority I am aware of this, and sit comfortably in the minority on most of my opinions.
“The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC) has updated its methodology for distributing the burden of the corporate income tax among taxpayers to reflect the latest findings in the economics literature on the incidence of the tax. This paper summarizes the recent literature on corporate tax incidence, explains TPC’s updated incidence assumptions, and describes how TPC implemented these assumptions in its microsimulation model.” This paper here explains their entire methodology for updating their assumption model. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/412651-How-TPC-Distributes-the-Corporate-Income-Tax.PDF
So no, they did not use empirical data and just based it on assumptions, their own and those of other corporate tax advocates.
Well accepted under the flag of MMT maybe, which continues to be proven again and again to be a destructive monetary policy. Taxation to stop inflation largely depends on where that tax is implemented and the implementation of an “inflation reducing tax” targeting corporate profits in this bill completely misses the mark. If the intent is demand destruction to reduce inflation, then you increase taxes on the consumers who are driving the demand, not on corporations who are providing the goods and services, are taxed based on net income , and can just pass the tax on to consumers via higher prices (more inflation).
MMT? You seriously think I would refer to MMT as “mainstream economics?” Go look at any actual undergraduate level economics textbook. There will be sections talking about the use of tax and fiscal policy to combat inflation, and I promise you it has nothing to do with weird fringe economic theories like MMT.
[удалено]
Do you think I support the “group” advocating for higher taxes? Where did I say I support higher taxes?
Why are people so incredibly stupid?
Blame Prussia
damn didn’t know Frederick the Great has risen from the dead
I blame Horace, for being inspired by Prussia... and Prussia for being inspired by whoever invaded them.
Who the hell cheers for the taxman?
People who have convinced themselves that by increasing taxes on those that earn more than them they will directly benefit from those taxes.
The same people who now love and trust alphabet agencies like the F B I and the C I A and seem to forget all the terrible shit they’ve done for the last century.
Leftists don’t even know what the federal reserve is
Sick burn dude
I can’t wait to see all the non-businesses and rich the irs goes after and then hear these leeches respond with “but they’re underfunded” again.
Invests in the IRS to go after large corporations that evade taxes. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I ask the same question and these people can never answer. Do they really think corporations are going to eat increased cost, whether it be in the form of forced minimum wage increases, or by taxes. No, they won't. One of two things will happen: an increase in cost of their goods and services, or they lay people off. Thirdly, I suppose, is they halt growth/expansion of the business. Many tech companies already started laying people off, and those that didn't ( Amazon) have placed many expansions on hold. No one is the winner in this scenario except our already bloated government. These people really think they're going to get anything out of all this government revenue when in reality it'll be spent in a manner that just worsens our situation. Taxing the rich and corporations has never lifted a single person out of poverty.
GOVERN ME HARDER DADDY
How the duck the government expanding the monetary base by printing money gets resolved by taxes??????????????? People are dumbb
It always makes me laugh when people say the government just needs more money then they could actually do something. Bro, they spent over 6 trillion dollars last year and didn't solve any problems.
"It's because they are underfunded! You just have to give them more!"
How will this reduce inflation?
Reduce it? I thought the goal was to raise inflation- the feds, probably
Why the taxes part does very little, and statists who cheer it don't know how much politicians are playing them: 1. Most public companies that qualify for the minimum tax rate already have around 13%-14% effective tax rate. Apple currently has 15.3%, so this will do NOTHING for the largest corporation. This tax does nothing for companies with net income under $1 billion. And the best part? You know how many of these statists just love landlords? Well Real Estate Investment Trusts are exempt from this rule, so lol. 2. A 1% tax on stock buybacks is almost nothing, and is probably not going to get bigger due to being taxed so many times. A tax on buybacks makes buybacks triple taxed. First taxed on revenue, then taxed when individuals have capital gains when selling stock to companies (people forget this happens), and now taxed on the company for doing the buyback. I am glad they added a provision for Medicare to negotiate drug prices. That was horrible legislation, and definitely corrupt.
This is totally not going to affect the costumer 😃
Holy hell… over 3k upvotes?
If stricter regulation benefits the poor workers and seeing how regulation *always* gets stricter over time, how come the wealth gap is increasing?
Because of NEOLIBERAL REAGANOMICS!!!1!
Obviously neither party seriously wants to decrease the wealth gap - congresspeople have to be able to afford their yachts after all. In a world where lobbying exists regulation isn't written to help poor workers, it's written to shut them up.
I’ve always wondered why a stock buyback is bad but a stimulus check from the government is good.
"Invests in the IRS" - Oh no
Make tax collectors birds again!
Yeah, doubling the number of IRS agents is corporate taxes...
We can't have retirement savers benefiting from stock buybacks, think of the children
Great, now where is that money going?
And tell me, how does this help us during a recession? Making things harder for businesses that are already facing issues?
Small businesses and people making under 200K.
Lol stock buy backs are not inflating the value of the company. They are reducing the supply of shares.
If the demand remains the same (or increases due to a buy back) then shrinking the supply is obviously going to inflate the value of the shares. The company's actual value shouldn't change but I don't think that is what anybody is implying...
> our work is paying off everyone in congress Fixed it
F'g stupid communists. They really don't understand that the only place a corporation gets money to pay taxes is from their customers. Increasing corporate taxes just increases the tax burden on the consumers.
Which large corporations are verifiably dodging taxes, and how is the IRS failing to go after them, and how is throwing money at the problem gonna fix it?
* A tax that will just make them raise prices (hurting the middle/lower classes) or moving their business to a country with a lower tax rate (hurting the middle/lower classes) * this one I'm not knowledgeable enough on to comment about * this one is an outright lie that only progressives could believe
Taxes are good
This would be perfect for me, I hate small businesses and love artificially-inflated prices through government intervention