It is currently Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:28 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 10356
Still Lit wrote:
Benefits (protections) yes, but also cost of regulations.


Regulatory costs and fines/penalties are all separate from taxes. Companies are paying all that and it has little to do with taxes.

Taxes are little more than the government decides it will spend X, and then it tries to go find the money. The MAIN reason you have property taxes, corporate taxes, state taxes, local taxes, sales taxes, water taxes, gas taxes, tolls, excise taxes, capital gains, estate taxes, etc etc etc....is a result partly of progressive taxation, but primarily because one tax rate in the 70-80% range creates more incentive and opportunity for evasion. You're more likely to comply if you get a lot of little knicks instead of one gashing cut.

Everything else is noise. Economists and policy makers don't really talk about "fair share" when it comes to taxation. They talk about the tax base, efficiency, effectiveness and economic impact....a.k.a "what's the best way to raise however much money we need?" Whether or not corporations should be taxed isn't really relevant to the discussion - they're taxed because we can, and not taxing them hasn't been considered to be the most effective way to raise revenues.

There is not one single tax that can't be eliminated. The challenge for policy makers is if you eliminate one revenue source, it may be difficult to replace that money by raising rates somewhere else. Yes, I shit you not Pelosi once referred to tax cuts as "spending choices".

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:45 pm
Posts: 12702
Sift through and see where your state ranks.... http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-th ... rth-2018-3
California on Average.
[Median household income: $64,500, Regional price parity out of 100: 113.4, Real income: $56,878]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 10356
Steelafan77 wrote:
Sift through and see where your state ranks.... http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-th ... rth-2018-3
California on Average.
[Median household income: $64,500, Regional price parity out of 100: 113.4, Real income: $56,878]


Surprising how close the "real income" is in most states. More surprsing how much higher it is in several east coast states.

But it should be pointed out we are talking state averages....those numbers tell you virtually nothing about NY City, SF, San Diego, Chicago, Boston, etc.. If you're not living near the beach in CA, it's probably reasonably affordable....except then what would the point of living in CA be - move to Arizona for the same weather, or Vegas where there are no taxes.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 10:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 9247
Kodiak wrote:
Still Lit wrote:
Benefits (protections) yes, but also cost of regulations.


Regulatory costs and fines/penalties are all separate from taxes. Companies are paying all that and it has little to do with taxes.

Taxes are little more than the government decides it will spend X, and then it tries to go find the money. The MAIN reason you have property taxes, corporate taxes, state taxes, local taxes, sales taxes, water taxes, gas taxes, tolls, excise taxes, capital gains, estate taxes, etc etc etc....is a result partly of progressive taxation, but primarily because one tax rate in the 70-80% range creates more incentive and opportunity for evasion. You're more likely to comply if you get a lot of little knicks instead of one gashing cut.

Everything else is noise. Economists and policy makers don't really talk about "fair share" when it comes to taxation. They talk about the tax base, efficiency, effectiveness and economic impact....a.k.a "what's the best way to raise however much money we need?" Whether or not corporations should be taxed isn't really relevant to the discussion - they're taxed because we can, and not taxing them hasn't been considered to be the most effective way to raise revenues.

There is not one single tax that can't be eliminated. The challenge for policy makers is if you eliminate one revenue source, it may be difficult to replace that money by raising rates somewhere else. Yes, I shit you not Pelosi once referred to tax cuts as "spending choices".


I'm going to humbly point out that none of what you posted shows why corporations should not at all be taxed.

Further, if companies have to pay regulation costs, why are you not complaining that citizens financially invested in these companies are just being double taxed by another means?

I'll just restate my dumb, stubborn position:
(1) Business is protected by the government and those protections cost money so corporations have an obligation to pay in if they want those protections.
(2) Business requires regulations and regulations cost money and so business must pay in (Does it really matter that factually regulation costs are separate from taxation? It is still money taken from the corporation to pay the cost of stuff the government imposes.)

You are making a point about how taxation actually works (god knows, you know more about it than me, without a doubt).

I do not care about that.

You said corporations should not be taxed at all. I have said why I think that is wrong. My argument may be really lousy, but you have not yet shown why, unless I am misunderstanding you (which is also, obviously, a real possibility).

_________________
Frank Sinatra, Jr. 'Black Night'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdwl7X6Jruo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 10:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 10356
Still Lit wrote:
I'm going to humbly point out that none of what you posted shows why corporations should not at all be taxed.


I've not only explained why corporations don't need to be taxed and shouldn't be taxed, but explained WHY they are taxed. Despite your claims to the contrary, you probably need to go back and re-read.

Businesses DO PAY for regulatory costs and other protections, and often do so directly, and both public (such as registration costs, fines) and private sector (such as audits, certifications, etc). And there's also a social welfare purpose for a lot of the rest, which benefits consumers and citizens, which is why THEY pay for those services with their taxes.

And I'll just blow up this argument one last final time by pointing out, again, 95% of companies ARE NOT TAXED. So I think that proves taxing corporations is not necessary. When people form companies, they choose to be an LLC, LLP, C Corp or an S Corp. Except for the C Corp, the other forms all CHOOSE how they will be taxed, and for 95% of companies it's pass-thru, which means all profits accrue to the owners and taxed just once, at the individual level. I feel like I've already explained this once or twice.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 10:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 9247
I’ll reread. But even if 95% are not taxed, that’s descriptive, not normative. My claims are normative. The fact that most are not taxed does not mean they ought not be. Surely you see the distinction. Whether it is necessary is relative to the standard. Surely you see that, too.

_________________
Frank Sinatra, Jr. 'Black Night'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdwl7X6Jruo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 5369
As most small biz owners know.....the "problem" at the end of most years is what do do with that extra profit in the business account. You do nothing and it gets taxed. So you either give yourself a nice bonus(personal taxes withheld like any other paycheck) , donate to a charity, upgrade equipment, or a little of everything to get your profit/loss balanced. Pass thru...no corporate tax.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:12 pm
Posts: 1719
Still Lit wrote:
But until the government gets its shit together regarding spending, we need to tax everything, IMO.

Whaaaaaaat?!?!? :shock: :? :cry:

_________________
Get well soon, Matt Murray


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 10356
Still Lit wrote:
I’ll reread. But even if 95% are not taxed, that’s descriptive, not normative. My claims are normative. The fact that most are not taxed does not mean they ought not be. Surely you see the distinction. Whether it is necessary is relative to the standard. Surely you see that, too.


You can argue we should be taxing them all you want, but against most every economist would disagree with you. Taxing income is suboptimal and hurts growth. Because it's double taxation, you simply don't need it to collect the same revenues. I can tax the business owner AND his business, or I can collect the same amount of money just taxing him once at a higher level on his personal income.

Your argument doesn't appear to be based on anything correct or logically sound. There is not one good reason for taxing corporations, other than it makes it easier for Uncle Sam to collect and audit. What you "feel" isn't any kind of argument. You've not come up with a single good reason why it should be that way.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 10356
Y-Town Steel wrote:
Still Lit wrote:
But until the government gets its shit together regarding spending, we need to tax everything, IMO.

Whaaaaaaat?!?!? :shock: :? :cry:


Yep....Another sheeple. What is shocking is that you'd think that Lit would know better. But apparently he doesn't care.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 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 3 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