If the corpo is taxed more on income, it lowers the profit margin, which probably would make them not especially keen on reducing it even further by paying more to their emloyees.
Noone is going to decrease their profits to pay less taxes. You only pay a fraction anyway, how would that even work?
They would rather set it on fire than pay people more. They want to keep everyone just barely below water. Almost no corporations are looking to hire good employees, they’re looking to hire desperate people.
Because something might benefit the bourgeoisie as a class(God, forgive me for using Marxist concept of class), does not mean it makes sense to do individually, which is what we were talking about.
But I would say this is exactly backwards: individually, it always makes sense to pay less if you can, but not in terms of the whole economy.
Even if you think in terms of macroeconomics, no, poverty is not beneficial. Any economy needs a strong market to sell goods to. Unless the country is exporting somewhere else, high amounts of disposable income is needed in the population for a thriving economy. Paying workers less does not necessarily result in worse outcomes for businesses, especially in the long run, since the economy might suffer.
So you could say that the statement “the bourgeoisie as a class benefits from poverty” is incorrect.
But they are not losing it anyway, since only a percentage of profits is taxed. They will still make more money if they pay less, just not as much as they would with lower taxes.
Only if they can get in a lower tax braket, but even then, there are other, better ways to do it.
If they need to be more competitive in terms of attracting labour, they will be more able to do this with lower taxes, because they would have a larger profit margin.
Low taxes always once tivizes taking profits. Higher taxes Incentivizes reinvestment. This is not a new understanding. Stop pushing the often debunked reaganonmic bullshit. It was never true, it never made any fucking sense. Just stop
God, I can respect your socialist views, but you don’t have to agree with everything that supports the things you like.
Thinking that if your company start making less money you will pay more to your workers is just delusional, there is no way around it. This is not Reagonomics, this is just reason.
If you claim it is debunked, provide a source for your claim.
I am not even saying we should lower taxes, just refuting your obviously false point that wages will be higher. It is baffling how uncritical you are of what you are saying.
Companies will always try to pay as little as they reasonably can. But sure, live in your fairy tale world where you can just make up reasons why your political views are great.
I’m guessing zero because you have no idea how companies work their financials.
Even a small business should be structured to minimize taxes in ever possible way.
Companies are structured to minimize liabilities of which taxes is one of many.
It’s the very reason companies hate unions, the contract is a series of liabilities.
It’s the very reason companies dumped penions, liabilities.
As soon the tax liability became a non-concern, they went after the now higher liabilities. Thoses things were payroll and benefits. Outsourcing and off shoring.
“Income” is what’s left after they pay their expenses, including labor costs. Worker’s pay doesn’t come out of their profits.
They will increase their deductible expenses. Ideally, they’d increase worker wages, but they’ll probably do something corrupt. It’s fairly easy to say that the company needs a car to get to and from meetings, so they use their business revenue to buy a $200,000 car that they use “for business”. On the books, that’s $200,000 less profit, but they get a $200,000 asset. But, even the corrupt act of buying a car (or a yacht, a private jet, a submarine) pays the wages of workers who built the vehicle.
They don’t really want a depreciable asset like a car. They’d rather buy a thousand shares of AAPL, or 8000 shares of GME, which wouldn’t go toward paying a worker. Except that it’s a lot harder to argue that these shares are necessary for their business. They can’t really justify financial instruments; they’re limited to tangible goods and services that could be used in commerce, which means they are paying the workers who produce those goods and services.
So they stick with claiming luxury goods as necessary for their business, and we let them think they are getting away with something.
If the corpo is taxed more on income, it lowers the profit margin, which probably would make them not especially keen on reducing it even further by paying more to their emloyees.
Noone is going to decrease their profits to pay less taxes. You only pay a fraction anyway, how would that even work?
It becomes a balance of "were losing it anyway, might as well use it to attach/keep good employees.
Instead of giving it away to Uncle Sam
This was literally the case when smart phones first came out.
Companies would buy their workers a phone and pay for the plan and write it off.
The second the irs tightened the rules, companies yanked benefit.
They would rather set it on fire than pay people more. They want to keep everyone just barely below water. Almost no corporations are looking to hire good employees, they’re looking to hire desperate people.
No
Why would they set it on fire? “They” are not sadists, they act out of self interest and this would not be beneficial to them in any way.
It is beneficial to them to keep workers poor, desperate, and with few options.
Because something might benefit the bourgeoisie as a class(God, forgive me for using Marxist concept of class), does not mean it makes sense to do individually, which is what we were talking about.
But I would say this is exactly backwards: individually, it always makes sense to pay less if you can, but not in terms of the whole economy.
Even if you think in terms of macroeconomics, no, poverty is not beneficial. Any economy needs a strong market to sell goods to. Unless the country is exporting somewhere else, high amounts of disposable income is needed in the population for a thriving economy. Paying workers less does not necessarily result in worse outcomes for businesses, especially in the long run, since the economy might suffer.
So you could say that the statement “the bourgeoisie as a class benefits from poverty” is incorrect.
They are very much sadists, they can spend money on anything except increasing wages
But they are not losing it anyway, since only a percentage of profits is taxed. They will still make more money if they pay less, just not as much as they would with lower taxes.
Only if they can get in a lower tax braket, but even then, there are other, better ways to do it.
If they need to be more competitive in terms of attracting labour, they will be more able to do this with lower taxes, because they would have a larger profit margin.
Low taxes always once tivizes taking profits. Higher taxes Incentivizes reinvestment. This is not a new understanding. Stop pushing the often debunked reaganonmic bullshit. It was never true, it never made any fucking sense. Just stop
God, I can respect your socialist views, but you don’t have to agree with everything that supports the things you like.
Thinking that if your company start making less money you will pay more to your workers is just delusional, there is no way around it. This is not Reagonomics, this is just reason.
If you claim it is debunked, provide a source for your claim.
I am not even saying we should lower taxes, just refuting your obviously false point that wages will be higher. It is baffling how uncritical you are of what you are saying.
Companies will always try to pay as little as they reasonably can. But sure, live in your fairy tale world where you can just make up reasons why your political views are great.
How many companies do you run?
I’m guessing zero because you have no idea how companies work their financials.
Even a small business should be structured to minimize taxes in ever possible way.
Companies are structured to minimize liabilities of which taxes is one of many.
It’s the very reason companies hate unions, the contract is a series of liabilities.
It’s the very reason companies dumped penions, liabilities.
As soon the tax liability became a non-concern, they went after the now higher liabilities. Thoses things were payroll and benefits. Outsourcing and off shoring.
“Income” is what’s left after they pay their expenses, including labor costs. Worker’s pay doesn’t come out of their profits.
They will increase their deductible expenses. Ideally, they’d increase worker wages, but they’ll probably do something corrupt. It’s fairly easy to say that the company needs a car to get to and from meetings, so they use their business revenue to buy a $200,000 car that they use “for business”. On the books, that’s $200,000 less profit, but they get a $200,000 asset. But, even the corrupt act of buying a car (or a yacht, a private jet, a submarine) pays the wages of workers who built the vehicle.
They don’t really want a depreciable asset like a car. They’d rather buy a thousand shares of AAPL, or 8000 shares of GME, which wouldn’t go toward paying a worker. Except that it’s a lot harder to argue that these shares are necessary for their business. They can’t really justify financial instruments; they’re limited to tangible goods and services that could be used in commerce, which means they are paying the workers who produce those goods and services.
So they stick with claiming luxury goods as necessary for their business, and we let them think they are getting away with something.
deleted by creator