This might finally explain IBM's long game as they purge the company of now unneeded human consultants. It only seemed like a complete hollowing out of all institutional knowledge and ability to create customer satisfaction while pursuing a short sighted focus on quarterly numbers.
Again, my point is disagreeing with the premise that taxes on profits will simply be passed on to consumers as if businesses weren't already charging what they believe is an optimal price for making profits.
If a business could deal with a 10% increase in tax by raising prices to make higher profits than why are those prices not already being charged and those higher profits already being made?
It is a nice bumper sticker that "companies don't pay taxes they collect them" and like so much of bumper sticker level understanding it is applicable sometimes. But it is still just a bumper sticker and not a universal truth.
ridiculous levels only cause profits to be hidden and eliminate the incentives to produce them.
99% is insane. even an excessive rate like 50% leaves a reason for a business to exist.
businesses can also lose money, your ridiculous 99% rate means there is a much higher chance of losing money than gaining it even for a solid business.
You maximize profit. the amount of tax you pay on profit is irrelevant to the process of maximizing it.
Taxes on inputs or sales can affect prices because they also affect your competitions pricing power.
Taxes on profits might encourage more re-investment of profits but they don't affect prices unless, for some inexplicable reason, you have decided to make less money that you could.
Taxes on profits are different than taxes on products, You are certainly correct that something like a gasoline tax is passed on to the consumer because gasoline is a commodity where every supplier has the same tax cost. Apple can't just set iPhone prices higher if they lose profits to taxes, because a business should already be charging optimal prices for generating profit.