re: Elon Musk makes $3 Billion more per year than every elementary school teacher in the U.S.

how many people can accomplish what musk has? now compare that to how many people could be school teachers?

quote:

---

Nope, it's not.

---

Nope, it is. Corporations do not pay taxes. Anyone calling to raise taxes on corporations is calling to tax YOU and anyone supporting it is a moron.

quote:

---

Nope, it is.

---

Nope, it's not. I'm not advocating for higher taxes on corporations—mostly because of the likelihood of deleterious effects on WORKERS, not consumers—but I'm afraid you are the moron.

Income taxes are not a raw production cost.

They are only paid on profits.

And, they are only paid if their accountants and lawyers can't figure out a way to legally avoid them, which large corporations have a lot more ability to do than you and I.

Raising taxes on corporations might cause any given company to raise prices to offset the loss of profits to taxes, but think about that for a second.

A lemonade stand makes a profit of $1,000 a year and is taxed at (just to keep the numbers simple) at 10%. So they clear $900. Taxes go up to 20%. Now they clear $800.

How much do they have to raise prices to get back to their previous profit level of $900?

Not 10%. Because remember, income taxes are levied on profits. They are not a raw production cost. So the more profit you make, the more you're paying back in taxes (and the reverse is also true, the lower your profit, the less that tax increase affects you.)

They'd have to raise prices roughly 13% to level out the 10% tax increase.

So if the company in question company operates on a high profit margin and sells a product that people like but don't absolutely need, raising prices would probably lose them more business than they'd make up by raising prices, because they'd have to raise prices by a significant amount...enough so that customers would notice. If that were the case for your company you probably wouldn't react like that. You'd probably invest in equipment or expand facilities or use money in a way that provided tax write offs to reduce your tax burden, but which increased the value of your assets and the company as a whole.

That's just one example. There are dozens of different scenarios, though. It depends on all kinds of market conditions: how elastic your products are, how many substitute goods exist to compete with it, how much market share you currently hold.

For example, it's easy to come up with a scenario in which a company might actually lower prices in response to a tax increase in order to capture more market share and make up the revenue in volume because their competitors are raising theirs.

So the Neil Boortz slogan that "corporations don't pay taxes, only people do" is fatally flawed because it ignores that taxes are something you have choices about as a company. You can choose to lower your tax burden. The price of raw materials or rent or tariffs, for that matter, you can't.

(Just an aside, but it's amazing to me that the people who insist that tariffs magically have no effect on corporate reactions are the same people who will parrot the Neil Boortz line on income taxes.)

But hey, don't take my word for all this. There's research on it.

And what it says is that on average, somewhere between 0-30% of a corporate income tax increase is passed along to consumers. That's an average, so that includes companies that didn't raise prices at all, companies that raised them a little, companies that raised them a lot, and companies who lowered them. Just like I said.

And also just like I said, the remaining 70% is reacted to by increasing investments, freezing raises and promotions, etc.

I mentioned tariffs above, and the failure to understand that companies react to increasing expenses in different ways depending on a variety of factors, not just by raising prices, is also why so many people are so stubbornly dumb about insisting that the tariffs have no effect. Of course they do. You can't avoid them, like you can income tax. And there are at least a half dozen ways that companies can react to them without raising prices.

Let me know the next time a teacher rescues stranded astronauts with a rocket ship they created.

quote:

---

Maybe your emotional trainwreck bestie cubbies

---

You stalk my posts to comment repetitively about a benign post I made ten months ago. And you're calling me a trainwreck.

quote:

---

Income taxes are not a raw production cost.

They are only paid on profits.

---

Yes, and this is baked into the cost of goods sold. Anyone telling you that corporations pay income taxes is lying to you.

quote:

---

And, they are only paid if their accountants and lawyers can't figure out a way to legally avoid them, which large corporations have a lot more ability to do than you and I.

---

Cost accounting is not difficult for your average accountant. Literally every CPA who works with corporate taxes understands this at some level.

quote:

---

They'd have to raise prices roughly 13% to level out the 10% tax increase.

---

Or reduce costs, which means the consumer is getting less and paying the same. You see this on your grocery store shelves.

quote:

---

For example, it's easy to come up with a scenario in which a company might actually lower prices in response to a tax increase in order to capture more market share and make up the revenue in volume because their competitors are raising theirs.

---

No, it isn't. Raw costs don't decrease. No one is lowering prices in response to a new, unnatural cost increase forced by the government.

quote:

---

So the Neil Boortz slogan that "corporations don't pay taxes, only people do" is fatally flawed

---

Only if you don't know what you're talking about.

quote:

---

But hey, don't take my word for all this. There's research on it.

And what it says is that on average, somewhere between 0-30% of a corporate income tax increase is passed along to consumers. That's an average, so that includes companies that didn't raise prices at all, companies that raised them a little, companies that raised them a lot, and companies who lowered them. Just like I said.

---

Yes, I'm aware that governments want excuses to raise taxes and will fund research that supports the desired end goal of raising taxes.

quote:

---

Should we reverse those tax breaks and close those loopholes for EVs

---

Are we not supposed to be capitalist?

Tax breaks for business is a brick in crony capitalism.

Teachers are indeed appearing as a surprising top profession for millionaires, ranking third in studies behind engineers and accountants, contrary to the belief that they do not earn enough to build significant wealth. Their path to millionaire status is driven by high savings rates, disciplined long-term investing, and the use of pensions, rather than high salaries. Key Drivers of Teacher Wealth 

High Savings Rate & Frugality: Many millionaire teachers follow a disciplined approach, often living on less than they make and saving a significant portion of their income, sometimes even when earning a median salary of roughly \(\$61,000\).

Consistent Investing: Teachers often invest 15% or more of their income consistently over a 30+ year career, utilizing compound growth, frequently through 403(b) plans.

Pensions & Financial Planning: A stable career with a pension (often paying a high percentage of final salary) combined with 403(b) contributions and home equity enables them to reach a net worth of over \(\$1\) million by retirement.

"Millionaire Next Door" Mentality: They tend to be methodical, avoiding high-risk, luxury lifestyles, and often work extra jobs (tutoring, summer school) to boost savings. According to a Ramsey Solutions study, teachers are more likely to have millionaires among their ranks than attorneys or doctors, often reaching this status by age 55-58. 

I hate rich people.

quote:

---

How about he uses some of that to pay off the debt for high performing teachers who still carry debt.

---

If you can't do, teach.

Teachers before deciding career paths should choose the Elon route.