It is currently Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:33 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 9851
I think you missed the part where I talked about doing it legally.

Point remains: up and moving someplace and legally becoming a citizen is not easy. The why don't you leave the country response is silly.

Not a chance in Germany, RS. Not a chance. Zee German philosophers are coming HERE for work.

But to get legal status working in a bicycle shop in Germany is not happening either.

I don't actually want to leave.

But I do truly love zee Germans. Cologne is faveorite city of mine.

_________________
Orangesteel wrote:
We could have ended the game there and Tomlin’s band of assholes let them back in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:08 pm
Posts: 6536
From 2011. . .

Quote:
1. Exxon Mobil made19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2. Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3. Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4. Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5. Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6. Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7. Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8. Citigroup last year made more than4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9. Conoco Phillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10. Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
Quote:
57 Fortune 500 corporations have their home headquarters in California, and they all do business in this state, yet it is unclear if any are paying their full taxes here. For instance, Apple computer avoided paying most of its state taxes to California by moving its investment wing to Nevada, and Intel has done the same by locating its finance department (Intel Capital) in the Cayman Islands. Thus, as California has led the way in the high-tech global economy, its corporations have used new technologies to simply avoid paying state and federal taxes. In fact, many of these corporations use a loophole in our tax code to declare their profits in countries that charge a low tax rate. So even if companies stay in California and use the schools, police, and roads of the Golden State, they claim that their revenue was generated in another country.
From here : https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-samu ... 46143.html

I realize the link is as toxic as breitbart or fauxnewz, but corporate welfare is real. Deal with it instead of looking to scapegoat to some fuckhead that games the system for peanuts vs one that games the system for billions, if not trillions. Corporations are individuals, after all. Right?

_________________
"I wish Fraudlin would get testicular cancer and die after he watches me anally penetrate his wife."


Last edited by COR-TEN on Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:08 pm
Posts: 6536
Still Lit wrote:
I think you missed the part where I talked about doing it legally.

Point remains: up and moving someplace and legally becoming a citizen is not easy. The why don't you leave the country response is silly.

Not a chance in Germany, RS. Not a chance. Zee German philosophers are coming HERE for work.

But to get legal status working in a bicycle shop in Germany is not happening either.

I don't actually want to leave.

But I do truly love zee Germans. Cologne is faveorite city of mine.
More false equivalencies and double standards. Not you, but the argument is bullshit that you can just move to another country and "choose" to lead a different life.

_________________
"I wish Fraudlin would get testicular cancer and die after he watches me anally penetrate his wife."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:45 pm
Posts: 13758
Liberal state gone insane. But who cares it's not their money they give away. Must be nice to have that much excess money laying around doing nothing that you can just hand it out no questions asked. Really?

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/califor ... 00692.html

I admit on the surface it's a great thing to do for those that can really use it. Also, charity makes you feel good as the giver. Good for you. How will this inspire folks to get out of their rut? I think folks will just rely on it as extra welfare.

I was always taught that being given something was great. Never take it for granted. To earn something was even better. Learning how to sacrifice and make your way until you reached that accomplishment means you'll not only remember the lesson you'll have a much higher respect for yourself and your existence. Earn it. Don't come to expect it. People all too often develop a sense of entitlement and come to expect it. That's what I see here. Given something for nothing eventually the mentality will become, you have it to give me; I expect it everytime now. I'm entitled to it just by breathing the same atmosphere you do. Very self destructive. Kind of contrary to what it's being implemented for, right? Starts out good natured but usually spins out of control into a destructive result.

The post above Ten is very telling of a corrupt government system. Doing favors for the wealthiest for favors in return. Hmmm.... been like that since the 1870's. When will the American People wake the fuck up?!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:48 am
Posts: 353
Still Lit wrote:
R S wrote:
This a similar argument I hear when someone says "not my president" "this country is full of idiots and is doomed" "resist" . Then they are aghast when someone offers advice that they should simply move to a country that is more in line with what they think is correct.


To which a plausible, possibly sensible response is: if you think I can just up and move to a different country and stay there legally so that I can enjoy those rights that I applaud, you are ill informed.

It's pretty easy to move from CA to WY. It's hard as fuck to move from CA to Deutschland. I would love to live in Berlin. Not happening. Unless you are a war refugee. :shock:


Come on now.. I lived in Deutschland for 14 years.. then Italy for 6... It was super easy... Loved every minute I was there.. I also love every minute I am here in the USA.. Most of all In 5 years I will be back in Pennsylvania for the remainder of my life..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 9851
Tundralag wrote:
Come on now.. I lived in Deutschland for 14 years.. then Italy for 6... It was super easy... Loved every minute I was there.. I also love every minute I am here in the USA.. Most of all In 5 years I will be back in Pennsylvania for the remainder of my life..


What did you do for a living there that was not military related?

My understanding, practically speaking from my time there, is that unless you are a war refugee, you better have some skills zee Germans need. I do not possess the skills.

If you were a computer engineer or some such that a company could not fill from the population pool, cool.

But I'm talking about becoming a legal citizen, not a resident worker.

East Berlin, Alexanderplatz in the Springtime is AMAZING.

I also have a recurring dream of setting up a burger-stand in Florence, Italy and somehow living there. Sipping cappuccinos outside the Uffizi. :lol:

_________________
Orangesteel wrote:
We could have ended the game there and Tomlin’s band of assholes let them back in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:48 am
Posts: 353
Still Lit wrote:
Tundralag wrote:
Come on now.. I lived in Deutschland for 14 years.. then Italy for 6... It was super easy... Loved every minute I was there.. I also love every minute I am here in the USA.. Most of all In 5 years I will be back in Pennsylvania for the remainder of my life..


What did you do for a living there that was not military related?

My understanding, practically speaking from my time there, is that unless you are a war refugee, you better have some skills zee Germans need. I do not possess the skills.

If you were a computer engineer or some such that a company could not fill from the population pool, cool.

But I'm talking about becoming a legal citizen, not a resident worker.

East Berlin, Alexanderplatz in the Springtime is AMAZING.

I also have a recurring dream of setting up a burger-stand in Florence, Italy and somehow living there. Sipping cappuccinos outside the Uffizi. :lol:


Yep 10 years there as Military.. 4 years as an army contractor doing Army computer Simulations the Germans called us Technical experts or exempt.. Required a US Secret or TS clearance.. Italy time was a GS employee..

as for East Berlin etc... you are correct... I had the opportunity as a card carrying German Jager to hunt all over Germany and the former East block countries.. that was amazing.. some of the best hunting in the world. Nothing better than starting the day 3 hours before sunrise, walking up the alps beyond the tree line and hunting Gams..(mountain goats) on the cliff faces..

I will always remember shortly after the wall coming down, when driving from west to east... was like going from color to black and white..

I would not trade one second of that time for anything..

BTW I had my 30th wedding anniversary in Florence.. That was a great time and great city..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 11617
COR-TEN wrote:
From 2011. . .

Quote:
[i]1. Exxon Mobil


From here : https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-samu ... 46143.html

I realize the link is as toxic as breitbart or fauxnewz, but corporate welfare is real.


LMFAO, again. Cherry-picking a year or two to "prove" a point that is just flat wrong, from a HuffPo article no less written by someone who probably knows even less about the issue.

It's a FACT that corporate taxes are @ 10% of federal revenues, or roughly $350B a year give or take. Obviously much lower in CA, where the top income rates are around 13% and have fewer C Corps being taxed as corporations. It's a FACT that the vast majority of companies (not sure of the number, probably 95%) have ZERO corporate taxes, because they are pass-thru entities where all income is taxed ONCE at the individual level (as it should be).

Simply taking less of someone's money is not anyone's definition of welfare, except a liberal politician. It's nothing more than a wedge issue as, again, all corporate gains are utlimately distributed to the shareholder where they are taxed either as ordinary or capital gains.

And when you cry about not taxing corporations more, realize that you're advocating to increase taxes on A LOT of very average folks who own shares in those companies in pensions, retirement accounts and mutual funds.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 5552
crickets

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 2:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 11617
R S wrote:
crickets


I get that a lot when arguing with libtards.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 9851
Kodiak wrote:
R S wrote:
crickets


I get that a lot when arguing with libtards.


I still want to know why you think corporations should not be taxed at all. That seems very extreme.

And I think there actually is federal money paid to certain sectors of agribusiness not to produce or not past certain levels. Only a single example, obviously, although, I may be wrong.

_________________
Orangesteel wrote:
We could have ended the game there and Tomlin’s band of assholes let them back in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 11617
Still Lit wrote:
I still want to know why you think corporations should not be taxed at all. That seems very extreme.

And I think there actually is federal money paid to certain sectors of agribusiness not to produce or not past certain levels. Only a single example, obviously, although, I may be wrong.


Well, there are some examples of actual corporate welfare, Elon Musk being the poster child. But as it's generally thrown around, no. But is paying someone NOT to produce actually welfare, or insidious central planning? What you call welfare others might call unecessary govt intervention and interference in free markets (or, more directly, just a way of distributing pork to various states).

And the reason for 0 corporate tax is because it's all double taxation. It's ultimately individuals who own companies, who are all taxed individually (and that's precisley how it works for 95% of companies). The reason you have corporate taxes has to do primarily with compliance and enforcement. History shows when rates increase, especially to high levels, evasion and avoidance increase. And obviously big corporations have foreign shareholders, so it's simply easier to tax the corporation than track down all the individual shareholders. But economically speaking, it's uneccessary and anti-growth.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2252
Still Lit wrote:
Kodiak wrote:
R S wrote:
crickets


I get that a lot when arguing with libtards.


I still want to know why you think corporations should not be taxed at all. That seems very extreme.

And I think there actually is federal money paid to certain sectors of agribusiness not to produce or not past certain levels. Only a single example, obviously, although, I may be wrong.


Actually, zero corporate tax is not a fringe position in public finance circles. See so called integration.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 9851
Zeke5123 wrote:
Actually, zero corporate tax is not a fringe position in public finance circles. See so called integration.


Zeke, I have no idea what that means. Could you rephrase the suggestion as a metaphysical query? :lol:

My position goes something like this.

Corporations are entities recognized by the government and given protections and regulated as deemed necessary. Given that these recognized entities enjoy the protective status of the government and require regulations for the god of the polity, corporations as distinct entities have an obligation just citizens do to pay into the collective pot.

Kodiak makes a point about double taxation, which I have never thought of before. But a business while run by persons is not a person. It is a separate entity that enjoys unique protections and requires unique regulations.

I would not meltdown if corporations were not taxed so long as it is for the public good.

But until the government gets its shit together regarding spending, we need to tax everything, IMO.

_________________
Orangesteel wrote:
We could have ended the game there and Tomlin’s band of assholes let them back in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2252
Still Lit wrote:
Zeke5123 wrote:
Actually, zero corporate tax is not a fringe position in public finance circles. See so called integration.


Zeke, I have no idea what that means. Could you rephrase the suggestion as a metaphysical query? :lol:

My position goes something like this.

Corporations are entities recognized by the government and given protections and regulated as deemed necessary. Given that these recognized entities enjoy the protective status of the government and require regulations for the god of the polity, corporations as distinct entities have an obligation just citizens do to pay into the collective pot.

Kodiak makes a point about double taxation, which I have never thought of before. But a business while run by persons is not a person. It is a separate entity that enjoys unique protections and requires unique regulations.

I would not meltdown if corporations were not taxed so long as it is for the public good.

But until the government gets its shit together regarding spending, we need to tax everything, IMO.


1. You mentioned Kodiak’a position was fringe. I was just pointing at that in academic circles that think often about tax, it isn’t fringe. There are numerous arrguments that imposing income tax on corporations is not optimal.

2. You raise I think a good rebuttable, but notice that you are suggesting a benefit basis for taxation. However, the whole progressive tax scheme is based on ability to pay. If you want to move to a benefit test basis, isn’t the reasonable response to try to tax the amount of the benefit?

Reasons are legion why some firms ornaize as corporate entities and others as partnerships, but presumably there is a delta of value between the two and that should be the basis for corporate tax if you believe benefit tax is the right way to tax things. Alternatively, you could tax corporations based on the cost of providing services to corporation eg a toll is an example of this kind of benefit tax

However, the current scheme is untethered to any cost or benefit. Thus, it is clear that it is ability to pay. If ability to pay, then integration appears to be appropriate given that the ability to pay must be the ability to pay at the level of the natural person who owns the corporation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 11617
Still Lit wrote:
Corporations are entities recognized by the government and given protections and regulated as deemed necessary. Given that these recognized entities enjoy the protective status of the government and require regulations for the god of the polity, corporations as distinct entities have an obligation just citizens do to pay into the collective pot.


While I am not an expert on org & tax structure, the C Corp is the only one that is federally taxed. Other corporations and partnerships such as LLC, LLP and S-Corps can elect pass-thru taxation. Although S-Corps, and possibly other structures, are still double-taxed at the state level.

So you're argument that there is something special and privileged with Corporations necessitating tax doesn't really hold water. Like I said, I'm not an expert but the only reason I can see to structure as a C Corp is because you intend to raise money in the public markets (debt and/or equity). And the point was you don't need to tax the Corp, just raise the tax on the gain to the investor and you collect the same amount of money without the double taxation.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2252
Kodiak wrote:
Still Lit wrote:
Corporations are entities recognized by the government and given protections and regulated as deemed necessary. Given that these recognized entities enjoy the protective status of the government and require regulations for the god of the polity, corporations as distinct entities have an obligation just citizens do to pay into the collective pot.


While I am not an expert on org & tax structure, the C Corp is the only one that is federally taxed. Other corporations and partnerships such as LLC, LLP and S-Corps can elect pass-thru taxation. Although S-Corps, and possibly other structures, are still double-taxed at the state level.

So you're argument that there is something special and privileged with Corporations necessitating tax doesn't really hold water. Like I said, I'm not an expert but the only reason I can see to structure as a C Corp is because you intend to raise money in the public markets (debt and/or equity). And the point was you don't need to tax the Corp, just raise the tax on the gain to the investor and you collect the same amount of money without the double taxation.


That’s correct. So the arguably benefit is the SEC; though some poorly advised taxpayers have C Corp.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 9851
Zeke5123 wrote:
Kodiak wrote:
Still Lit wrote:
Corporations are entities recognized by the government and given protections and regulated as deemed necessary. Given that these recognized entities enjoy the protective status of the government and require regulations for the god of the polity, corporations as distinct entities have an obligation just citizens do to pay into the collective pot.


While I am not an expert on org & tax structure, the C Corp is the only one that is federally taxed. Other corporations and partnerships such as LLC, LLP and S-Corps can elect pass-thru taxation. Although S-Corps, and possibly other structures, are still double-taxed at the state level.

So you're argument that there is something special and privileged with Corporations necessitating tax doesn't really hold water. Like I said, I'm not an expert but the only reason I can see to structure as a C Corp is because you intend to raise money in the public markets (debt and/or equity). And the point was you don't need to tax the Corp, just raise the tax on the gain to the investor and you collect the same amount of money without the double taxation.


That’s correct. So the arguably benefit is the SEC; though some poorly advised taxpayers have C Corp.


Let’s be clear: i’m ignorant as fuck about all this stuff. But my claim is normative not descriptive, Kodiak. So my argument may not hold water but not for the reason you point out.

_________________
Orangesteel wrote:
We could have ended the game there and Tomlin’s band of assholes let them back in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:45 pm
Posts: 13758
Quote:
Awards season is in full swing in California, and the Golden State just took home a booby prize of its own.

California ranks dead last among U.S. states in quality of life, according to a study by U.S. News, ranking behind New Jersey (49th) and Indiana (48th).

The ignominious honor reflects California’s low marks in the sub-categories of environmental quality and social engagement. The latter category measures voting participation and community bonds.

Californians scored poorly in part because they’re simply insufferable, U.S. News suggested.

“In addition to a healthy environment, a person’s quality of life is largely a result of their interactions with those around them,” the magazine wrote in a blurb accompanying the results.

One way to measure quality life is whether residents can even afford to have a roof over their heads, and by that standard, California is failing.

A 2017 Harvard University report said that one-third of renters in the Los Angeles area are “severely rent burdened,” meaning they spend at least half their income on housing. The median rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Los Angeles County has increased 67%, according to Zillow’s Rent Index, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Homelessness has surged a stunning 75 percent in the last six years, the Los Angeles Times reports, and there are now at least 55,000 homeless people in the county.

U.S. News ranked each state in seven other areas, which were weighted based on a survey that determined their importance to the public: health care, education, economy, opportunity, infrastructure, crime and corrections, and fiscal stability.

Regarding its budget, California does have a balanced budget under Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, but the Standard & Poor’s rating agency recently warned that the good times won’t last.

“California’s finances are roaring back,” the agency’s report said. “History would suggest, however, that any fiscal renaissance will be temporary.”

If the stock market shifts from gains to losses, Standard & Poor’s said, the budget could be negatively impacted in a major way because about half of the state’s revenue comes from the wealthiest 1% in California.

California finished No. 43 in fiscal stability, No. 46 in opportunity, and No. 38 in infrastructure. It posted relatively high marks in health care (11th), economy (4th), and crime and corrections (28th).

California ranked No. 32 among all U.S. states overall, behind New York (25th), New Jersey (19th), and Florida (15th).

Which state has the best quality of life? North Dakota, according to the study.

Iowa, which scored highly in infrastructure and health care, took the No. 1 overall “best state” in the rankings. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/01/ca ... -says.html
Says it all.... but keep coming to califukinya you don't have to work and the free [on the tax payers] health care is awesome and you too can perpetuate the disease. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 12:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 9851
Zeke5123 wrote:
You raise I think a good rebuttable, but notice that you are suggesting a benefit basis for taxation. However, the whole progressive tax scheme is based on ability to pay. If you want to move to a benefit test basis, isn’t the reasonable response to try to tax the amount of the benefit?

Reasons are legion why some firms ornaize as corporate entities and others as partnerships, but presumably there is a delta of value between the two and that should be the basis for corporate tax if you believe benefit tax is the right way to tax things. Alternatively, you could tax corporations based on the cost of providing services to corporation eg a toll is an example of this kind of benefit tax

However, the current scheme is untethered to any cost or benefit. Thus, it is clear that it is ability to pay. If ability to pay, then integration appears to be appropriate given that the ability to pay must be the ability to pay at the level of the natural person who owns the corporation.


To the extent I am able to follow, that makes good sense. Not sure how relevant the following response is, but here goes:

Benefits (protections) yes, but also cost of regulations. Artificial persons must be regulated in addition to receiving whatever benefits they are entitled to (set aside figuring out what regulations are overreach for the sake of argument; but we don't want the Cuyahoga catching on fire again for the sake of the public good). Natural persons must be regulated as well, but I would imagine that at least some regulation is unique to artificial persons. E.g., can a natural person be responsible for a blow out at an extraction site in the Gulf and liable for clean up costs?

Regarding benefits, I would imagine at least some of the benefits (protections) companies receive are unique to their artificial status as well. Other benefits are not unique (use of roads, etc). A tax proportionate to the level of benefit received seems totally reasonable.

If some protections and regulations are unique to the artificial status of the company (i.e., it is an artificial person, not natural), then I am hard pressed to agree that the natural person is being double-taxed as Kodiak points out.

"Thus, it is clear that it is ability to pay. If ability to pay, then integration appears to be appropriate given that the ability to pay must be the ability to pay at the level of the natural person who owns the corporation."

Walk me through the necessary connections between the clauses, here.
Conclusion: integration is appropriate.
Premise: the ability to pay must be (why?) the ability to pay at the level of the natural person who own the corporation.

What connects the premise to the conclusion?

Forgive the question, this is just not something I am used to thinking about.

_________________
Orangesteel wrote:
We could have ended the game there and Tomlin’s band of assholes let them back in.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
FORUM RULES --- PRIVACY POLICY




Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group