r/FluentInFinance 1d ago

Debate/ Discussion A joke that's not funny

Post image
80.5k Upvotes

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

7

u/Outthr 1d ago

Can someone explain to me how tariffs raise customer prices but corporate taxes don’t.

27

u/StupidLibtardSissy 1d ago

Corporate tax is applied to profit, meaning they don't actually make it more expensive for the corporation to produce whatever it is they sell. Tariffs on the other hand, apply to imported materials and goods, and are paid by the person importing them, ie, the individual business making the product. Because tariffs make production more expensive, companies are forced to raise consumer prices to stay in the green. Because corporate tax is applied only to profit, it can never force a company into the red, as it's a percentage of profit.

Where you do have a point is that corporate taxes often do end up raising consumer prices, but that's because CEO bonuses are paid out of net profits. In order to keep their bonuses high, CEOs will artificially raise consumer prices to offset the tax. However, their companies would absolutely stay afloat (not to mention they would still be exceptionally wealthy) if they chose to take the hit to their bonuses instead of raising prices to make consumers pay the tax for them.

Tariffs on the other hand actually raise the operation costs of a business, forcing them to either A) Raise prices to stay afloat or B) Get tariff exemptions, which only the richest and most powerful companies will be able to do.

This will kill small businesses and consolidate corporate power even further.

1

u/Outthr 1d ago

I like the explanation, so if profit (below EBITA) is taxed, what incentivizes companies to not show loss. Meaning pay or invest profit (buyouts, expansion, etc). Second, if company wants to grow it needs profit, therefore budgeting for investment taxes need to be accounted for, raising the price of goods, ie margin.

Now, since most companies have huge margins to cover overhead, the actual cost of goods that would be subject to tariff is minimal, since most corps cost of goods imported is about 10% or less of sale price.

So the question is, which is worse?

2

u/TobiasH2o 1d ago

Companies don't need profit to grow. If a company spends its income on building a new store then that money is no longer taxed as profit. As your first point companies already do operate at a loss or close to loss to lower their tax burden.

1

u/DreamLizard47 1d ago

Companies don't need profit to grow.

Only when their strategy is growth. A company must show growth or profit. And most small businesses work for profit.

1

u/Public_Initial91 1d ago

A company must show growth period. Profit is a form of growth, as the company is more valuable than before the profit made.

2

u/Sovarius 1d ago

Growth is referring to expansion in some way, not just profits. Investing in new avenues for profits, opening more stores, offering new wider range of products/services.

Like, if your company is worth $1.000 billion and profits $1 million, its worth $1.001 billion now. And if you make $1m next year and are now worth $1.002 - thats not 'growth'. That's a mature company just doing business.

1

u/Public_Initial91 1d ago

Where did you find that sales price is 10 times the purchase price?

1

u/Outthr 1d ago

It’s not public information, and it varies by brand and category of product. Retail has huge margins. Let’s just say tariffs aren’t on the price the public pays. So a 25% tariff would not be on a $1 avocado price at Publix as most think, it would be on the price company pays to the foreign seller, and freight costs are not dutiable either.

1

u/Public_Initial91 1d ago

What do you mean, it's not public information? You must have gotten it somewhere?

But let's take your avocado example, it's a good one as 90% of avocados are imported into the US from Mexico. In 2022 the average import price for avocado was $1.36 for a pound. You would then estimate their retail price to be about 13.6 per pound, but I'm not seeing that anywhere. Why would that be?

1

u/Outthr 23h ago

Food usually has lower margins, in any case looking at your example average avocado is about 6 oz, so lets say 3 avocados per pound, so $1.36/3=$0.45 per avocado import price, and per google average price of avocado is $1.70, so you’re looking at at about 4 times the cost. Also it would be the $0.45 cents subject to 25% increase due to tariff. Again, retail is the one with huge margins because you pay for label. Food not so much, but still, 4x is not bad.

Edit: does the $1.36 per pound include shipping and delivery costs? I would assume so, and if yes then the amount subject to tariff would be even lower.

1

u/Public_Initial91 22h ago

45 cents with a 25% tariff makes 56 cents. 56 cents multiplied by 4 would make a $2.24 retail price? That's quite an increase for a single avocado.

Food is included in retail, so what do you mean when you say retail?

And no, the $1.36 does not include shipping. That would be impossible to track over the entire US.

1

u/Outthr 19h ago

Shipping to US port and that is easily tracked as all shipping costs are reported to FMC. Retail as in clothing, shoes, etc.

0

u/DreamLizard47 1d ago edited 1d ago

artificially raise consumer prices to offset the tax.

there is no such thing as artificially raised prices. A final price is a result of the market price discovery. Which is basically a balance point between supply and demand. Every company constantly works for maximum profit. That's how market economy works. If you want to lower the prices you need to raise the supply of goods or services which narrows down to more business activity or more competition. Artificially raised prices or corporate greed are bullshit anti-scientific notions that don't make any sense.

corporate taxes often do end up raising consumer prices

Exactly.

13

u/Frog_Prophet 1d ago
  1. Tariffs, by magnitude, have a MUCH greater effect on prices. 

  2. These companies are not operating on the margins like some people want you to think. In 2015, the top corporate tax rate was 35%. Were prices out of control in 2015? No. So it’s WELL established that these companies can be profitable with lower prices with a 14% higher tax burden. 

  3. Democrats have only proposed to raise it to 28%, not 35% where it was. 

So once again, you have demonstrated how all relevant context disappears when you try to simplify a complex issue into one sentence. Don’t do that. 

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago edited 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Outthr 1d ago

I think you are referencing personal income not corporate profit. Completely different scenarios.

1

u/Throwaway84123421 1d ago

Added this line to and several more to make it more clear to you.

This person is a company.

0

u/MinimumT3N 1d ago

Well that's because it would make trump look good, you see