taxation

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

IIRC you like taxing the rich. Me too. But to do that, you have to generate them.

--snip--

If the US experienced that sort of growth in the next twenty years, there would be a massive surplus. Health care would be an afterthought in the budget. So this is what needs to happen. The best way IMO is to create an atmosphere heavily in favor of the marketplace (not just *business* per se).

We have experience this sort of growth (from your link):

Three-fourths of Asia's 105 newcomers get the bulk of their fortunes from stakes in publicly traded companies, 25 of which have been public only since the start of 2010.

This looks like the tech bubble just before it went POP! There were lots of people who were rich "on paper", because they had gotten in early on the next big thing.

I don't begrudge other people or other countries their success. I am in favor of taxing the rich, and taxing the medium, and helping the poor (we can fight over what constitutes help later). I am also in favor of taxing businesses, since they occupy a space in our lives, in our economy, in our legal system, etc. What I am saying is that money begets money. And especially corporate money is ... if you'll pardon the mangled analogy... genetically void of any moral obligation to pay "their fair share". The share they're paying now is far less than what I consider fair.

Growth is awesome, like oxygen, like oxygen plus rainbows, just the bestest. I want it too. But it is important that the growth is spread around (yeah yeah like spreading the wealth around... whatevah). Businesses need customers too. Customers with money to spend at the business, ya know?

So, how do we encourage growth? How do we reduce the drag on our prosperity? How do we cure cancer? And a million other questions, ones we have to embrace, no, tackle simultaneously. We can't just do these sequentially. Once we get the growth happening THEN we'll look at your ideas about tax reform (followed by a pat on the head, etc). Nor can we seize all the assets of the moneybags only to look around and wonder what's a good recipe for grilled money.

These are real problems, we agree on that I believe. When I have a snarl of problems to solve, I try to triage them. Then I work on the important ones first. I believe the broken corporation tax structure is important enough to concentrate on first.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Indeed. They are called immigrants, and we have plenty of room for them.

I agree provided they enter the country LEGALLY, otherwise, get in line or GTFO and start over. Way to many people have done it the right way for us to give blanket amnesty to anyone who happened to overstay a visa or sneak in with a coyote.

[Clodfobble]

To imply that there is a "line" for willing immigrants is the opposite of the statement that "we have plenty of room for them." Either there is room, or they need to wait in line.

[Undertoad]

There is room at the inn, there is a line at the check-in desk.

[Clodfobble]

(Just to be clear, I was agreeing with you UT, I was taking issue with Merc's contradictory statements.)

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

To imply that there is a "line" for willing immigrants is the opposite of the statement that "we have plenty of room for them." Either there is room, or they need to wait in line.

I don't believe we have the room at the rate they want to jump the line, illegally.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

And especially corporate money is ... if you'll pardon the mangled analogy... genetically void of any moral obligation to pay "their fair share". The share they're paying now is far less than what I consider fair.

Given the US has among the highest rates of taxation and corps are moving their headquarters out of the US, what do you determine to be "their fair share"?

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/u-s-c...e-the-highest/

Washington, DC, September 13, 2011 -- A new analysis of research on corporate taxes finds that U.S. firms consistently have among the highest effective tax rate in the world. Taking the most recent thirteen academic studies that compared effective corporate tax rates across nations, the Tax Foundation's most recent report documents the U.S. effective corporate rate as significantly higher than the average of all other nations.

"Taken as a whole, these studies indicate that the average effective tax rate for U.S. corporations - like the statutory rate - is one of the highest in the world. By every avail*able measure, the U.S. imposes a very high tax burden on its corporate sector, in com*parison to other nations, even after credits and deductions are considered," said Tax Foundation Adjunct Scholar Philip Dittmer.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/27619.html

[BigV]

Originally Posted by mercy

Given the US has among the highest rates of taxation and corps are moving their headquarters out of the US, what do you determine to be "their fair share"?

That's a good question mercy. I've talked about this in a couple posts to this point, and I'll recap those thoughts here.

I don't have a strict numeric value in mind for what constitutes their fair share. Focusing on a number like this is misleading. In fact, anyone who views the information in the two links you provided will find wildly different numbers for US corporation tax rates. Cato says 40% and Tax Foundation says 27%. The story I recently cited talked about Google paying 2.4% So, "what's fair?", see how that isn't a useful question if the answer needs to be a percentage?

Back to your good question. Just like our individual tax system is built so that the highest earners pay rates that are lower than the rates paid by individuals who earn less, our system is built to permit corporations with lots of profit and therefore lots of resources to take advantage of the rules to shelter large portions of that profit from exposure to taxation. Our laws are written to permit corporations to avoid/shield/evade/shelter whatever lots of these profits. I'm not the one saying so, just look at their own words!

From here:

Representative Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican who serves on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, in May introduced legislation that would call for an immediate tax holiday allowing companies to repatriate overseas profits at a 5.25 percent rate.

How much money are we (and by we I mean the US Chamber of Commerce, by far the most pro-business organization in the country) talking about? As much as one-thousand two-hundred BILLIONS. That's 1.2 Trillion Dollars. That is how much money is estimated to be "parked" offshore by corporations, US corporations that do their business here in the United States. And that's accumulated since 2004, the date of the last tax repatriation holiday. Look, what's happening here is NOT that businesses are being driven out of the country because of our tax laws. What's happening here is that our laws permit the profits from those businesses (most especially very large businesses) to leak, not be driven, out of the country. This is legal. This is how we've built our system. This is what I am saying is UNFAIR.

That we have a system that enables corporations who, in every other way, participate fully in all other aspects of our society, except the part where they pay their fair share for all the things they enjoy, is evidenced by the very existence of overseas profits. Why is the whole idea of a tax repatriation holiday even possible if there were no EXPATRIATED profits? You can't REpatriate what hasn't been EXpatriated in the first place. Why do we *let* profits be expatriated?

It's not just unfair to me, oh poor me, but to all of the rest of us who do not have the situation or wherewithal to take advantage of these aspects of our systems, and who therefore pay proportionally more than the corporate giants who can and are.

As I said before, the system we have, the laws we have are configured to make the costs of running our country to fall unfairly on those who have less money. Is this explanation clear to you?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

That's a good question mercy. I've talked about this in a couple posts to this point, and I'll recap those thoughts here.

I don't have a strict numeric value in mind for what constitutes their fair share. Focusing on a number like this is misleading. In fact, anyone who views the information in the two links you provided will find wildly different numbers for US corporation tax rates. Cato says 40% and Tax Foundation says 27%. The story I recently cited talked about Google paying 2.4% So, "what's fair?", see how that isn't a useful question if the answer needs to be a percentage?

Which I why I posted two links, there is a huge disparity between what they pay and what people think they pay.

Our laws are written to permit corporations to avoid/shield/evade/shelter whatever lots of these profits. I'm not the one saying so, just look at their own words!

From here:

I agree, the tax holiday with bring those dollars back into the country.

How much money are we (and by we I mean the US Chamber of Commerce, by far the most pro-business organization in the country) talking about? As much as one-thousand two-hundred BILLIONS. That's 1.2 Trillion Dollars. That is how much money is estimated to be "parked" offshore by corporations, US corporations that do their business here in the United States. And that's accumulated since 2004, the date of the last tax repatriation holiday. Look, what's happening here is NOT that businesses are being driven out of the country because of our tax laws. What's happening here is that our laws permit the profits from those businesses (most especially very large businesses) to leak, not be driven, out of the country. This is legal. This is how we've built our system. This is what I am saying is UNFAIR.

I understand parking the profits. The bigger issue is that very large corps are moving their HQ out of the US because of the tax policy in this country. Your points are valid as well.

That we have a system that enables corporations who, in every other way, participate fully in all other aspects of our society, except the part where they pay their fair share for all the things they enjoy, is evidenced by the very existence of overseas profits. Why is the whole idea of a tax repatriation holiday even possible if there were no EXPATRIATED profits? You can't REpatriate what hasn't been EXpatriated in the first place. Why do we *let* profits be expatriated?

More good points.

As I said before, the system we have, the laws we have are configured to make the costs of running our country to fall unfairly on those who have less money. Is this explanation clear to you?

More clear. The costs of running our country are not borne by those who make less, they are paid for by people who have more money, if you look at the tax system alone. Excluding sales taxes that everyone pays a minority of people pay the majority of the taxes.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

<snip>
I agree, the tax holiday with bring those dollars back into the country.

<snip>
More clear. The costs of running our country are not borne by those who make less,
they are paid for by people who have more money, if you look at the tax system alone.
Excluding sales taxes that everyone pays a minority of people pay the majority of the taxes.

Merc, I don't get your thinking... the media report that the big companies are sitting on hugh sums of cash.

How does a "tax holiday" benefit the country ...
other than giving the corporations that "avoided" US taxes yet one more freebie ?



Also, what is your justification for excluding sales taxes from the equation ?

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Also, what is your justification for excluding sales taxes from the equation ?

Well duh. Wouldn't back up his argument if he didn't.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Which I why I posted two links, there is a huge disparity between what they pay and what people think they pay.

I agree, the tax holiday with bring those dollars back into the country.

I understand parking the profits. The bigger issue is that very large corps are moving their HQ out of the US because of the tax policy in this country. Your points are valid as well.

More good points.

More clear. The costs of running our country are not borne by those who make less, they are paid for by people who have more money, if you look at the tax system alone. Excluding sales taxes that everyone pays a minority of people pay the majority of the taxes.

What about payroll taxes mercy? Those are federal taxes too, and given that the unemployment rate is what, roughly 10%, that means that 90% of people are paying federal taxes. Not a minority. Come on.

Don't get stuck on the false talking point that

a minority of people pay the majority of the taxes.

It's bogus. You should drop it.

[BigV]

Hey henry quirk. You've had some good contributions here, but not recently. Care to weigh in again?

[henry quirk]

Sure, but no one will like it.


Okay: as illustrated here in this thread, in similar threads in any number of forums, and in the real world: there ain't any easy answers to the question of 'what comprises an equitable taxation?'.

Every one has differing ideas on what 'fair' is, on the purpose of taxation (and by extension, the purpose of governance), and so on.

My take (ignoring my *'point of sales tax' idea up-thread): simply to starve the **bastards out.

The mechanism of governance is fueled by taxes...I find ***'governance' (as a general notion; as currently in-play anywhere and at any time you care to name) repugnant (I've no need of 'governing')...so: since there can be no consensus, since the direction (no matter who sits in the big chairs) is always toward greater and greater regulation/control/domestication/'governance', I say starve the bastards...give them no more money...without fuel, the machine stops.

Simple as that.

This, of course, will never happen.

The average Joe and Josephine is well-hornswoggled...indoctrinated in 'tax evasion' is 'wrong', and, ****'the LAW always catches the bad guy', the two J's would no more deny the machine of governance its fuel than I would deny myself coffee and cigarettes.

J and J will kvetch about the amount of taxation (or the uses tax revenue is put to, or, who is or isn't paying his or her 'fair share')) but never ask the questions 'why should I be taxed in the first place?' and 'what's all this 'governance' about anyway?'...after all: they each understand the machine needs fuel and each is convinced that 'everyone' needs the machine.

So: I got no answers to offer...*shrug*




*I think it's a good idea (as equitable), but it'll never happen, because -- by way of 'point of sales taxes' -- everyone takes the hit, and no one wants to take the hit (they want the other guy, preferably the rich(er) guy, to take the hit). Hell, maybe the rich(er) guy DESERVES to get his (or her!) balls cut off. Keep in mind, however: robbing the rich to feed the poor eventually leaves you with no rich and only a momentarily sated poor.

**By 'bastards' I mean ALL politicians, ALL the poor, ALL the stupid, ALL, the weak, and ALL the rich...not a one of any of them is my problem or concern...if you care to let these folks suckle away at YOU, please, be my guest...me: not open for business as life support for strangers, hangers-on and the mercenary (not you, fellow poster with that moniker!)

***As I mention up-thread: 'governance' is distinct from 'proxyhood'...YAY! for proxyhood!

****Crime dramas lead the schooling that 'LAW' is omni-present and omni-potent...lies, damnable lies!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

What about payroll taxes mercy? Those are federal taxes too, and given that the unemployment rate is what, roughly 10%, that means that 90% of people are paying federal taxes. Not a minority. Come on.

You fail in math. Those paying most of the taxes also pay all of those other taxes as well....