.........price elasticity governs your success or lack thereof.

Good point about moving your snowcone stand.

If your profit margin is too small to maintain your lifestyle, you are in a snowcone pickle. If you raise prices other folks with lower overhead will undercut your business (they use ice from a different source, perhaps or maybe they are owned by a privileged minority class of some sort and thus, get a break to be 'fair" and address past grievances). So you can either close your stand or you can move to another location that isn't subject to that local tax or offers incentives to induce your move. So you lay-off your employee and move.

Sometimes taxation (and regulatory burdens) become so burdensome or onerous that a business may close or move it's facilities so as to avoid taxes. This shrinks the local tax revenues through direct loss of your business tax and indirectly, by putting your employee on the dole which further increases the burden on local services even while it shrinks the tax base.



B

Screw that, I'm going into the oil business.

Sometimes my employee's health care costs become so burdensome I have to close, making me wish the government would take care of some of that health care burden so that my tax burden isn't so bad. Turn 90% of that health care burden into tax burden and I still save 10%. Sometimes my location is a poor choice for my industry. And sometimes regulatory burdens ensure I don't poison people.


EDIT: Also, I didn't move my stand, just it's HQ. I'll still earn money off the community, just not pay their taxes.

No doubt our All Knowing Sage from that moderately benighted city of Atlanta will be able to enlighten us as to why it is just right and good that a company or corporation, should not EVER have to effectively, or actually, pay ANY TAXES whatsoever, yet while still taking advantage of the democracy that allows them to do business in this country.:rolleyes:

Perhaps in his infinite wisdom he may deign to remind us that "Starvation is God's Way of Punishing Those Who Have No Faith in Capitalism".

Or something.:confused:

Agreed......much better than an airline or a lemonade stand.

Corportations are owned and staffed by people. When corporations pay taxes, either the owners, or the employees, or the customers end up paying. If you shift the tax burden to be directly on individuals and only individuals, the same taxes still get paid-ie revenue stays the same. The main difference is that when only individuals are taxed, they realize how much the government is taking from them.

You do not understand that corporations do not pay taxes. They pass the cost on to the consumer. Until you grasp this concept it is not worth having this debate.

All true to varying degrees. Regardless, the bottom line is the bottom line.

Every imposed burden hurts the bottom line unless you raise prices.

B

Every imposed burden + costs subtracted from gross income defines the bottom line. I can choose to eat the .04 tax increase and be satisfied with a 96% markup instead of 100%. Or determine that the 96% is best for my business. I can also choose to speed up production to make up that 4 cents through efficiency changes.

Point is, tax is a cost :D.

And in the case of Exxon, or any public corporation, it affects the profit of the owners, which in the case of Exxon, could be several hundred thousand poeple and organizations (also owned by people) owning the stock. Including working class people hoping to build up a retirement fund with the uncertainty of social security.

The profit is not the corporation's, but the owners', the stock holders. Taxing corporations only affects the end user and the stock holders.

Either the end user gets charged more, or the owners don't make as much. But if the market can bear the cost of the product PLUS the cost of the tax, then it could be argued that if there were no tax, the cost is completely born by the owners. If you have a 401(k) or a mutual, you probably have an interest in having Exxon provide as much profit as possible.

I don't think we disagree, do we?

If the tax burden is onerous, the taxpayer will move, cheat, pass the cost to the consumer or go under. The more baggage you put on the donkey's back the more you make him work for your benefit rather than his own.

What has heavy industrial and textile business in America done over the 30 years as the burden increases? How is that different from the snow cone stand?

So?

You lost me. Costs are either borne by the owners or passed on to the consumer, whether a tax is part of them or not. If Exxon were in my 401k, I'd rather they made less money.



No, we don't disagree, just have slightly different ways of looking at it.


1-They've outsourced. 2-It's not essentially.

The textile industry has outsourced for a slew of reasons. Labor for one. Labor, like taxes, are a cost. No one is calling for people to work for them for free, so why call for ending taxes? If they got cloth for free, naturally they would no longer be burdened with the cost of material. Taxes are just part of the cost of doing business. I fail to see why corporations should just have a cost lifted off of them for no reason. It's a market condition like any other. Maybe it leads to bankruptcy, maybe health care costs do. And one would have to be high to think prices will go down if the tax is gone.
If we're going to lift the tax burden of a group for no reason, how 'bout lifting it off citizens first?

"If we're going to lift the tax burden of a group for no reason, how 'bout lifting it off citizens first?"

That's the point. The citizens are paying the tax that you say Exxon pays. Nobody else. Whether the citizen is the consumer, the investor, or both.

The citizen as consumer also pays the cost of transportation. Should that be free for companies too? As investor/owner, the citizen pays income tax, just like everyone else. Why should the investor have his tax burden lifted and not the non-investor? I propose we only lift the income tax burden of people who own no stocks or business.


As individuals, we pay taxes in exchange for services. The company uses those services too.

Once again, I wish I could convince you, the corporation pays no taxes. None. Zero. The owners do. Citizens and foriegners, but eventually, normal people, own all the public companies. And as owners, they pay the taxes.

Where does the citizen get the money to pay the tax??

Brian, what do you mean? The source of the money? The government prints it by the ton.

Where did the "citizen" get the money to pay the tax that you claim that they pay............did they steal it from the government?

They may have received it from the government directly, in the form of SS or welfare. Or, they may have earned by working for a company, incorporated or not, which in turn gets their money from customers, who are ultimately individual citizens. Or maybe self employed and from their customers.

Or a bazillion other ways to get money. Inherit it, steal it, find it, embezzle it. Maybe even print it themselves.

Lead me where you want to go a bit more clearly.

..........therefore, the corporation paid the tax.

No, the owners did.

The owners couldn't pay the tax because they never received the any money to allow them to pay anything.

The corporation earned the money and the corporation paid the tax.

Funny. I just read the first page of this thread, and then this 15th page. Kinda like the soap operas. You don't need to watch them everyday to follow the plot:D

It's the democrats fault, y'know.

Yep, we go round in circles..........seemingly forever..........:rolleyes:

There sure are alot of people that don't understand fourth grade math. Or maybe it was only third grade when we learned percentages. Yes it was $40 Billion profit, but it was only at about a 10% rate. If you can't make more than 10% profit, you're better off investing your money elsewhere and going fishing rather than busting your butt for no more profit than that.

It's amazing how many people fall for the partial information that the left wing mainstream media spews forth.

Can you run your business on less than 10% profit margin?

People can't wrap their minds around the simple notion of percentages. They are impressed by the 40 billion dollar figure.

I would like to but in the real world, it isn't possible. One small mishap and you would be toast.

.

Good grief.
Do you really still live in childhood innocence.
Do you really think Exxon does not try to hide every penny they can.
And that is after paying the higher ups in the company billions of dollars.

Exxon does not play by the same rules as the local mom and pop store.

.

Most people don't understand the concept of net profit and gross profit.

It's not that easy for a company to make a 10% net profit. Most companies in the US would be ecstatic if they could achieve 10%. It's huge. It easily covers any small mishaps.

Now, if you're talking about a 10% gross profit..........you're out of business. Many large companies operate with a 50% gross profit. Some successful small companies will get to 60-65%.

Well, I'm off to buy my newspaper..... :)

nnnooOOOOOO!

Lack of evidence is proof of guilt? Kuh-razy!

B

Worked on Saddam

I agree.

The analogy would be if the IRS knew that EXXON had pumped a figure higher than they reported. We would all want the iRS to pursure EXXON, wouldn't we?

B

And Citizen Joe doesn't? Really? Who is living in fantasy land now?

So?

Again, So? The bigger you are, the more ways you can hide. When you earn minimum wage, you have fewer deductions than when you earn 50K. When you earn 50K you have fewer deductions than when you earn 150K. Don't like the rules? Vote to change them.

Profit Right Wing Blood Bleaders for the rich
 

Do you know why there is no national healthcare in this country and we are at war in Iraq

1 one man a CEO in a major HMO make 1.7 billion a year.
2 one man a CEO for EXXON makes 125 million a year.

your 10% is speaking of the working poor not the bllod sucking elite.

Why should there be? Why do we have to pay for others? Since when do we owe you a living?

So? Don't like it? Earn your way to the top and change it, if you can.

How so?

No good. We didn't know Saddam had 'em. We suspected.

Based on the raw materials that we knew he had and that he broke the treaty so many times in the past.

4. No, it sure doesn't...and Mom & Pop don't employ 126 billion in capital in their stores either.

3. From EM's 2007 Proxy statement, this on executive compensation and performance standards.


"In assessing the performance of the Named Executive Officers, the Compensation Committee does not assign specific weights to the factors considered. An executive’s performance must be high in all key performance areas in order for the executive to receive an overall superior evaluation. Outstanding performance in one area will not cancel out poor performance in another. For example, a problem in safety, health, or environmental performance in a business unit for which the executive is responsible

could result in an executive’s incentive award being reduced even though the executive’s performance against financial and other criteria was superior. Similarly, a violation of the Company’s code of business conduct could result in elimination of an executive’s incentive award for the year, as well as termination of employment and cancellation of all previously granted awards that have not yet vested or been paid.

Named Executive Officers are expected to perform at the highest level or they are replaced. If it is determined that another executive is ready and would make a stronger contribution than one of the Named Executive Officers, a replacement plan is implemented. Reinforcing these high performance standards is the fact that Named Executive Officers and other senior executives do not have employment contracts, severance agreements, or change-in-control arrangements, which increases the risk and consequences of performance that does not meet the highest standards. For these reasons, the interests of the Corporation and its shareholders are best served when executive compensation decisions are made using careful judgments that take all relevant facts and circumstances into account, rather than by predetermined formulas.

Below the level of the Named Executive Officers, the performance of other executives and managers is assessed against objectives and metrics specific to their business units and through a rigorous performance assessment and ranking process. The Management Committee of the Company, which is comprised of four of the Named Executive Officers, is responsible for overseeing the performance assessment and ranking process. This process applies to over 43,000 managers and professionals worldwide (including over 1,600 executives). It is part of a well-developed, disciplined process that integrates performance assessments, compensation, and career development and succession planning. The assessment of individual performance and ranking takes into account results and the means through which those results are achieved. Ranking results are translated into salary and other compensation targets to create differentiation in pay between the lowest and highest performers to reward strong performance and motivate employees to continuously improve their contributions. Assessments of executive potential are conducted concurrently and implemented through a consistently applied, common process. The results of this annual exercise are also primary inputs to the executive development process described in more detail below. "

For the record and from the same report Rex Tillerson, Chairman and CEO of EM earned a total of 14 million in 2006, which included 1.5m in salary, 2.8m in bonus, 4.0m in restricted stock grants and 4m in "Change in pension value and Non qualified Deferred Compensation earnings." EM's next four highest paid executives were paid in the 7-9 million range spread among these categories.

One final comment. US tax law limits the amount of compensation that is deductible for tax purposes. I think it's a million dollars. So, EM isn't saving on US income taxes by paying these $$'s.

Argue 14 million as unreasonable if you want, but no way EM pays the "higher ups in the company" billions of dollars. Get a grip. :rolleyes:

2. From it's 2006 annual report, EM incurred sales based taxes of 30 billion; othe taxes and duties of 39 billion and income tax expense of 27.9 billion. Total 97.5 billion in various taxes and duties. (p. 38 of EM's 2006 annual report containing audited financial information.) Also, in the footnotes, EM disclosed that it has outstanding issues in the US Tax Court for the years 1988 to 1993.
If you think the large corporations like EM are not the most highly audited entities in the country, you are mistaken.
From it's Cash Flow disclosure, EM's cash paid for income taxes in 2006 was 26.165 billion dollars.

Final comment: EM's 2006 net income was 39.5 billion. Add back the income tax expense of 27.9 and we have pretax income of 69.322 billion dollars. The effective tax rate on that 69 billion is 43%. This might not be a fair share in some eyes, including yours, but in mine it's reasonable. You tax the golden goose for "corrupt" and "windfall" profits and you have less for exploration, research, etc, etc.

1. I don't live in childhood innocence, but I do like to get my facts straight. You are entitled to your opinion, but not your facts.

If you are at all interested in facts about EM, I suggest you include in your reading the Annual Report and Proxy Statements including SEC filings available by links from here:
http://ir.exxonmobil.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=115024&p=irol-reportsAnnual

I have no particular love for Exxon, but I can't stand rants based on false or no information.

Edit: Of that 39.5 billion net income approximately 5.5 billion is from US operations. The rest is from global operations.

Earn My Way to the Top
 

It seems to me that once at the top the only way to make the briliance of millions is by killing and cohercing a country like the usa to kill and and spend the wealth of millions of citizens and then make them believe that entitlements are no good for the people or the economy. Sir your a down right trillion aire and I am glad you are on top and have entire accounting companies hiding your money so you wont have to pay tax's. why should you any way you are using up all the natural resources and labor and providing so called low paying jobs. Your not a citizen as all men are created equal you a Lord of the land...

I'm more than pleased we have no socialized healthcare, no national healthcare policy, and I wish we could do away with the healthcare entitlement that we do have.

Signed,
Blood-sucking Elitist

The Iranian soldiers and Kurdish citizens were killed by an overdose of suspicion.

The chemical manifests and billing information turned-over by German, Italian, French and Russia entities as a result of UN sponsored investigation we what?

A. Fabricated by Bill Clinton
B. Real

B

If I am, I haven't noticed it yet. What's your point? That if I am not super rich I have to be for entitlement programs and what not?

Well, Bill Clinton lied about having sex so maybe he lied about Hussein. I'll bet Clinton paid off all the industries to fabricate the evidence. :D

I seriously doubt anyone, outside of maybe Gates or Buffet, has ever made 1.7 billion in year.

That said, it's shocking that actual doctors have to sweat nickel and dime decisions while making a fraction of the execs at HMOs, execs who didn't sweat nearly as much to get their training as the average doc.

Universal health care has its problems but applying the business model to health care is whacked.

- Bleeding heart libtard,

Correct.

The current business model is being driven by the health insurance companies. The price that they pay the doctors is fixed. If the doctor doesn't like it.........they can go pound sand.

So, the level of care for each individual patient continues to drop because the doctor must churn the people through the office to make a decent living. Many doctors cannot even crack $100K per year these days, after expenses...........and the problem is getting worse.

I'm not entirely satisfied that universal health care by the government will solve anything, but, the current business model as prescribed by the insurance companies is not achieving the goal of decent patient care.

Line staff has never made as much money as execs. Don't like it? Become an exec IF YOU CAN. Would I like to earn more money like Bill Gates? Sure. Since I don't have the capabilities, I'll have to live with what I can earn.

Entitlements
 

Oh yes Sir Bush and clan are all entitled to entitlements but the peopel 41 42 43 swore to look after it benefits.

What on earth are you trying to say?