Today I paid £1600 of tax. Some of that tax was tax on tax. I had to pay stamp duty on a new commercial property lease. The lease is liable for VAT. The VAT pushed the value of the lease over the stamp duty threshold, and so I pay £1600 tax because I paid my value added tax on the lease.
Its like a grown man on a skateboard. Just WRONG.
Originally posted by WheelyThe difference is that in the aforementioned scenario, it appears that they are charging the consumer twice for taxes.
Where did you think corporations got the money to pay taxes from?
Not only do you pay their taxes, you build their offices, pay their employees and are even expected to pay for the coffee in their coffee machines.
Definately a rip off.
Couple of years ago the company I worked for went out of business, so for the first time in my life I had to draw unemploymet at about 40% of my salary. Mind you this was, in effect, my own money they were giving back to me...had to pay income tax on it a second time. Sometimes you get the bear; sometimes the bear gets you.
Originally posted by Darth SpongeThe logical conclusion then is that the end-consumer is paying all taxes for corporations since whatever you buy is going to have that corporation's tax liability rolled up in the cost.
I just had a revelation while reading my cellphone bill. There are 3 small fees under "Additional Sprint Charges" and the astrisked explanation: *"These charges are not taxes or government-imposed fees. They are charges Sprint elects to collect to pay governmental taxes and fees that are levied directly on Sprint, and to recover the administration cos ...[text shortened]... r (or perhaps Sprint) for the amount of my own tax liabilities plus administrative costs?
According to what I was taught in microeconomics class, this is not the case. The consumer and the corporation share the cost; it's not otherwise possible. This is because the demand will go down due to the increase in price and the company loses profits.
You are the end consumer. The buck stops with you. You work. You earn. You pay. You pay companies for the goods and services you receive. You pay the gorvernment for education, health, roads, security, policing, etc, etc. And the more you can afford, the more you pay.
And who receives the money? Ultimately, you do and other people just like you. Some get more, some get less, but, ultimately, what do they do with that money? They buy more goods and services and pay more taxes....
That's what makes the world go round.
Originally posted by GatecrasherVote with your feet.
You are the end consumer. The buck stops with you. You work. You earn. You pay. You pay companies for the goods and services you receive. You pay the gorvernment for education, health, roads, security, policing, etc, etc. And the more you can afford, the more you pay.
And who receives the money? Ultimately, you do and other people just like you. Som ...[text shortened]... hey buy more goods and services and pay more taxes....
That's what makes the world go round.
If you dont want to pay, dont pay. just walk away
Originally posted by AThousandYoungthis is an accouting issue, not really economics. It's not that a company increases an established market price by adding in the tax, thereby becoming more expensive than competitors and less attractive to potential buyers, thus decreasing demand- this is not the case. The tax is built into the pricing structure before market price is established and since all corporations do it as a matter of principle, it's not a differentiating factor in purchasing decisions. it's invisible.
According to what I was taught in microeconomics class, this is not the case. The consumer and the corporation share the cost; it's not otherwise possible. This is because the demand will go down due to the increase in price and the company loses profits.
This is a game called The House Always Wins.