When income taxes rise on the rich do the consumers/poor pay the bill OR

[rusk2003]

dose it pump back money into the ecconomy. Senario A the govenmetn raise income tax on the rich by ten precent. All the executives at Corporation A rasies their salaries to make up the diffrence and raise prices on the products that they sell and/or decided not to give the employees the extra bonus or rasie they had been planning on. senario B the additional tax pumps in more money into the eccodmy and helps the fund social programs makeing up the diffrence in senario A.

[pw]

1. Raising prices because of personal income tax increase

Sounds just about as likely to me as the idea that when the government lowers taxes on the rich they'll gladly lower their salaries and give employees bigger bonuses because now they have more money to play with. What do you think about that one?

[rusk2003]

well I don't think they would give them extra when their txes are lowered

but if they raise it more then they will just rasie prices on consumers on the productsd their selling. well at least I would if I had A business if I could not get more business

[Code_Name_D]

8. Why wait for higher taxes?

They seem to use any excuse to raise their compensation any way.

[patdem]

2. The rich ALWAYS lowers prices when THEY get breaks????

NO? Why would that be?...according to your scenario the rich are inextricably attached to the poor in ways you cannot explain?

[rusk2003]

3. On second thougth perhaps Iam wrong I was just baseing in on

on what I would do in that senario. I would not lower their salaries or cut thier bonus just raise prices.

[pw]

5. Companies can only raise prices

if that won't cut into sales and cost them more money than they gain by the price increase. Same thing with raising salaries -- the money has to come from somewhere.

They're going to set prices and salaries at the highest level they can get away with, so the tax bite (either higher or lower) doesn't come into it. That what what I was trying to point out.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

9. they will set prices as high as they can and salaries as low as they can

"Companies can only raise prices if that won't cut into sales and cost them more money than they gain by the price increase"

Of course. They will also raise prices as high as they can, and lower salaries as low as they can, in order to generate more profit - isn't that the point?

[papau]

4. Rich salary based on greed, not need - so tax changes nothing

They will always max the (pre-tax) dollars out from the corporation.

Bush/Reagan whole theory is bull - a cover for a way to raise campaign cash from rich - while telling the poor you have their family values, and that they are poor - not because they get paid too little - but because the gov taxes too much - so cut taxes on the rich and get a throw away couple of hundred for yourself - as the lack of taxes going to the gov means roads are not repaired, jobs and job traning killed, and forget about education or health you ingrate!

:-(

:-)

[rucky]

6. If you want corps to use their savings to create jobs...

...then it is the payroll tax - not the income tax that should be cut. That way the only way companies save is by hiring or retaining - cutting the workforce also cuts their tax savings (to a degree depending on who you think actually pays the payroll taxes).

Besides, income tax before Bushcuts were relatively progressive compared to the extremely regressive payroll taxes that nobody seems to talk about.

So the next prezzie needs to:

1) Roll back the tax cuts (see recent thread on our deficit)
2) Cut Corporate welfare spending in half (there's 50 Billion in savings right there)
3) Graduate the payroll tax to all income brackets - then cut it by the amount you've saved in steps 1 & 2 - minus the deficit.

If no jobs are created with this formula, we still at least have a balanced budget... and any jobs created can help pay for our wishlist programs and/or to pay down the debt.

[roughsatori]

7. My brother is a multi-millionaire and he gets many legal loop-holes

He has his bookkeepers and lawyers figure out every possible deduction and legal ways of sheltering income. I would like to see a true accounting of income taxes paid by multi-millionaires. With the recent Shrub tax cut money he was able to buy 2 condos in Florida and 2 in Aruba for his family to vacation. He and wife stay in one, his kids stay in the other when they go on vacation (each condo is 3 bedrooms, 2 bath). He did not use it to improve his equipment, hire any new people, or dole out raises. He told me he is thinking of changing parties now that he is rich. He is a selfish pig and has always been so. Oh and he told me he got to deduct 75 thousand for his new SUV. He has 5 of them.

[Fixated]

10. ...

Keep in mind that the rich don't all own companies, people...

[German-Lefty]

11. Smells like Supply Side stuff

If you start taxing the rich more on thier income, as with anyone else, you may see two things:
1) They'll work less since it's just not worth the utility to have that 90 hour a week job. I'm sure someone else will be happy to have that job.
2) They'll move off to some other place where taxes are less. Since exec pigs get paid more in the US than elsewhere, that won't happen.

The only Supply Side argument that seems to have a grain of truth is that investors when faced with higher taxes on profits will:
1) spend instead of investing. Sure, but not if they want to stay rich.
2) be risk averse. "If I win a million Uncle Sam takes X%, but if I loose a million it's not like hey gives me money." Generally though if you've got a balanced portfolio you can still take your risks and not worry about "too much profit".