why is raising taxes on the rich and corporations bad?

[TheGrinchWhoStoleDC]

This is correct. There are also many other problems with corporations as a whole but this sums up an area in easy to understand terms

Really, it's not jsut corporations, and is even more of an issue with smaller companies who are worknig with much smaller profit margins.

If I'm a business owner I have to make X dollars for it to be worth keeping my business open. Businesses are not charities, and no one goes into one to jsut break even or take a loss.

So if you raise my costs, then I have just a few solutions. Cut other costs like labor and production, or be forced to charge more, both of which could put a small business owner in a bind, as corporations are able to cut costs through economies of scale, outsourcing, etc.

So really, it's small business you're hurting.

[CaptUSA]

OP is gone folks,

/thread.

[TheGrinchWhoStoleDC]

OP is gone folks,

/thread.

Why? Should he/she come back, then there will be a multitude of answers regarding the OP's question.

Otherwise it can't hurt to clarify the message (and even debate under the current system where we're unlikely to see 0% taxes anytime soon)

[erowe1]

One reason its wrong is that raising taxes on anyone at all gives the government more revenue. And that's a bad thing.

[Zippyjuan]

The tie between government revenue and expenditures was tossed out long ago. They will simply borrow more money. Reducing taxes won't lead to lower spending- just more debt.

[angelatc]

Because it isn't your money.

[Danan]

If , I own a corporation , I will pay no tax , the consumers who buy my product are going to pay it , it will be priced in.

People are going to consume less if you price it in (income effect and depending on the tax also substitution effect), which means your profits are going to decrease too. In reallity both economic actors, the buyers and the sellers, pay all taxes.

[TheGrinchWhoStoleDC]

People are going to consume less if you price it in (income effect and depending on the tax also substitution effect), which means your profits are going to decrease too. In reallity both economic actors, the buyers and the sellers, pay all taxes.

Not necessarily, price elasticity plays a factor as well. If you have inelastic demand, and particularly a monopoly, you can pass on every bit of the cost to the consumer.

However it is a valid point that there is a balance between all of the microeconomic factors: supply, demand, price elasticity, competition, etc.

[Acala]

The tie between government revenue and expenditures was tossed out long ago. They will simply borrow more money. Reducing taxes won't lead to lower spending- just more debt.

I suggest you contribute more. I have other plans for mine.

[Shane Harris]

As long as I can opt out if I want. If government is such a great thing, then people, when given a real choice, should generally decide that the benefits outweigh the burdens and opt in. The problems start when governments can force people to participate in their little game. That's when it stops being about everyone enjoying the benefits of delegating certain joint function to an agent and starts being about one group plundering the property and freedom of others.

As long as my "share" of government is actually being rammed down my throat, then, no, I don't feel any obligation whatsoever to help pay for it.

Totally agree. However, to be able to opt of of government is to change the definition of government. The fact that it is rammed down your throat without your consent is what makes it a government and not a business. If you could opt out then essentially what was government is now an insurance company or business selling whatever kind of product it claims to provide. Anarcho-capitalism is the logical conclusion after admitting that we own ourselves. Any amount of government means that you are in one way or another enslaved, and unable to personally opt out. That characteristic is what defines the State.