It is currently Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:10 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
 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: 9619
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.

_________________
TB wrote:
Breaking news: Tom Brady is also better than Ben Roethlisberger. Jerry Rice is better than Antonio Brown. Your mom is a bigger slut than my mom.


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: 11067
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: 2154
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: 9619
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.

_________________
TB wrote:
Breaking news: Tom Brady is also better than Ben Roethlisberger. Jerry Rice is better than Antonio Brown. Your mom is a bigger slut than my mom.


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: 2154
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: 11067
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: 2154
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: 9619
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.

_________________
TB wrote:
Breaking news: Tom Brady is also better than Ben Roethlisberger. Jerry Rice is better than Antonio Brown. Your mom is a bigger slut than my mom.


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: 13372
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: 9619
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.

_________________
TB wrote:
Breaking news: Tom Brady is also better than Ben Roethlisberger. Jerry Rice is better than Antonio Brown. Your mom is a bigger slut than my mom.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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