Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:No it's not. We've been over this before.

And you've consistently been wrong.

The corporation is a separate entity, therefor it is taxed separately. If it wasn't a separate entity, it'd not have all the rights of being one. But of course, it is a separate entity, with separate legal rights, with the shareholders not being liable for its actions.

Would you also say that a corporation has the right to vote, sense it is a separate entity?

Corporations have rights and responsibilities, but they are not people, at least not until Texas executes one.

That would be funnier than hell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Does anyone believe that we should go through and look at every law to see if it is still relevant? example: In Florida, it is illegal for a man and woman to live in the same house, unmarried.

Do you you believe that there are business laws that are irrelevant in order to make finding the relevant laws easier?

d-usa wrote:Corporations have rights and responsibilities, but they are not people, at least not until Texas executes one.

Corporations can be "executed" through judicial dissolution.

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:Corporations have rights and responsibilities, but they are not people, at least not until Texas executes one.

Corporations can be "executed" through judicial dissolution.

But the body still lives.

broodstar wrote:
Do you remember 1979 when Nixon instituted price fixing on gas to "help consumers with energy costs".

Nixon left office in 1974, you're thinking of the 1973 crisis. In 1979 Carter started to deregulate oil prices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
He's right.

If you run a corporation and all of a sudden the government tells you that your income will be reduced by 20%, what would you do? Probably raise prices, if you can afford to. (Of course, you would get undercut by foreign firms not subject to the same tax rates, but hey, too bad for American jobs).

Well, he's sort of right. As you've alluded, whether or not a company raises prices is determined by more than the corporate tax rate. Indeed, what they can reasonably obtain for their product or service is the most important variable when considering how revenue will be maximized.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
If I'm selling widgets at $5, but could afford the drop in profit by selling them at $4.75, why would I continue to compete with you for customers by selling them at $5?

Revenue projections favor a higher price point.

Plenty of market studies have shown that uninformed consumers often use price as a means of determining quality.

broodstar wrote:

biccat wrote:

Vulcan wrote:So... corporations no longer have to pay taxes under your plan? You seem to have left them out.

We can but dream.

Vulcan wrote:Corporations pay the percentage on profit, including stock dividends; not on gross. Is this enough? Not a tax lawyer or accountant; someone will have to enlighten me.

Corporations deduct all of their expenses (including salaries) then pay tax on that amount. After they've paid tax (35%) they distribute stock dividends.

Then those dividends are taxed at 15%.

And businesses don't pay tax, they pass them on to the consumer through raises in price, so when you tax a business you are actually taxing yourself. Once you realize that I'll talk to you about why I don't tax businesses.

You know, I never considered that before... makes me feel kinda dumb, because I've pointed out where that happens for other business expenses (oil prices being the most recent example) but never considered how that would apply to taxes.

(Yes, STOP THE INTERENT! I actually changed my mind to agree with someone!)

biccat wrote:
Unless - and just bear with me here - corporate profits are at an all time high in spite of high corporate tax rates.

The average, effective, federal corporate tax rate for companies in the highest bracket is ~22% (pretty much where its been since Reagan), which is in line with the rest of the developed world once you factor in state taxes.

Not that this a good thing, as the emphasis on deductions heavily influences corporate decision making. A lower tax rate, with fewer deductions, is almost universally superior.

Two things jump out at me.

One: Both the US and the UK spend 17% of their federal budgets on Health Care. Whether these numbers are accurate, I do not know. But I do know that the citizens of the UK, regardless of how much money is in their bank accounts, can walk down to the dentist/doctor and be treated. In the US... you'd better have some bucks saved up, or have decent insurance, or (most likely) both.

Two: People keep lumping Social Security into 'welfare' or 'government aid.' It's not. Properly speaking, money spend on Social Security is the payment of benefits accrued from the individual's paying into his Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. Yes, INSURANCE. It is NOT a handout; we, the people of America, paid our money in premiums deducted straight from our paychecks all our lives.

If receiveing Social Security is getting a handout, so is getting reimbursed for damage to your car from your Automotive Insurance, as is getting reimbursed for damage to your house for your Home Insurance, as is getting a good chunk of your doctor's bill paid by your Health Insurance. And if any one of those failed to pay as defined in the contract, you would blow a fuse!

So why is OASDI different? Just because it is run by the Federal Government? Because now, after years of Congress skimming the surplusses off the OASDI premiums in a move that puts Enron to shame, the Fed finds itself in a position that it has to make up what Congress once stole? What makes it a 'handout' to want back the money you paid into the fund in the first place!?!

Vulcan wrote:Two things jump out at me.

One: Both the US and the UK spend 17% of their federal budgets on Health Care. Whether these numbers are accurate, I do not know. But I do know that the citizens of the UK, regardless of how much money is in their bank accounts, can walk down to the dentist/doctor and be treated. In the US... you'd better have some bucks saved up, or have decent insurance, or (most likely) both.

Two: People keep lumping Social Security into 'welfare' or 'government aid.' It's not. Properly speaking, money spend on Social Security is the payment of benefits accrued from the individual's paying into his Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. Yes, INSURANCE. It is NOT a handout; we, the people of America, paid our money in premiums deducted straight from our paychecks all our lives.

If receiveing Social Security is getting a handout, so is getting reimbursed for damage to your car from your Automotive Insurance, as is getting reimbursed for damage to your house for your Home Insurance, as is getting a good chunk of your doctor's bill paid by your Health Insurance. And if any one of those failed to pay as defined in the contract, you would blow a fuse!

So why is OASDI different? Just because it is run by the Federal Government? Because now, after years of Congress skimming the surplusses off the OASDI premiums in a move that puts Enron to shame, the Fed finds itself in a position that it has to make up what Congress once stole? What makes it a 'handout' to want back the money you paid into the fund in the first place!?!

SS isn't really a handout, it's more of a tax. You every drive by the SS office and notice all SS lawyer's offices around it. That's because you have to sue the government in order to collect it. One guy even went up to the supreme court, and they told his that he was not entitled to the money he worked all his life for.

broodstar wrote:OK, it's time to play your little game.

I'm not playing a game. I'm trying to explain some things to you.

So are you saying that mankind can not possible live without big brother looking over their shoulder?

No, because it's a nonsense question, because the thing you call Big Brother is just the codeword you use for 'government that is bad, as opposed to all the obviously necessary functions of government that I choose not to think about'.

The government has to be involved in everything you do, so a bureaucrat follows you around telling of a federal regulation that says that he must stay with you every day to enure that you are breathing properly, what would your response to him be?

You are making the very stupid assumption that believing the existance of government is necessary and beneficial means accepting any and all levels of government.

Please stop making up such stupid things, and return to thinking about the issues I already presented you with.

Can the government do anything better for you, than you can do for yourself?

Government operates in a fundamentally different manner to private individuals. This means some things are done better by relying on open markets and the invisible hand, while others are better done through government institutions.

For instance, it would be an absolute, complete disaster to rely on government to develop the next range of smart phones. They simply do not have an effective system to innovate consumer goods compared to private enterprise.

On the other hand, it'd be just as big a disaster to rely on private individuals to develop a national road network. The private sector simply does not have an effective system for developing assets that benefit a very wide range of people.

Have you ever lived in a world without laws?

No, and nor have you.

Have you struggled to make ends meet while others have played the system?

I've never struggled to make ends meet, so no.

Have you ever considered that in this system you are a pawn, not of those of a higher income, but of a lower income?

If the poor are so powerful, then how come they're poor?

And have you ever considered a system where you can live your whole life hunting and living off your land with the only government interaction is the sheriff coming up once a month just to check up on you?

No, because I quite like civilisation. if other people want to do that then they're welcome to, but it's got absolutely nothing to do with what's being discussed here.

Now that I've gone through your list of entirely pointless questions, please go back and read what I've already explained to you, and stop, and actually think about it. Accept that you have little to no understanding of economics, and that the populist drivel you've put in its place is no substitute.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

broodstar wrote:Yeah that will happen, grow up to a life of subjugation ok.

Except, of course, it isn't subjugation by any sensible definition.

We were meant to live for so much more.

We're better lives than anyone in history, so really that's just romantic sounding nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

broodstar wrote:The military I give all my heart for, I'll give you that but the roads maintained bwahahaha.

Yeah, it's almost as if a country increasingly convinced that government is bad has failed to properly govern for the decline of road infrastructure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

broodstar wrote:The top six us budget expenditures.

833 billion on medicare/medicaid
731 billion on social security
696 billion on defense
395 billion on income securities
226 billion on interest on the debt
214 billion on federal pensions

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending not to mention social security, foodstamps, affordable housing?

Because your argument basically sums up to;
"I spend $150 a week on rent and $85 on food, so explain to me how the $60 I spend on antique soft drink cans is excessive."

I mean fething seriously dude, you don't just line items up next to each other and see which is the biggerest, then job 'r done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:No the federal government is not obligated to do anything of the sort. Its obligated to protect the against foreign attack and facilitate intrastate trade. Everything else is jelly.

The constitution gave the people the ability to vote for their representatives in government. Those representatives built a system with a welfare component. And the people kept voting for them, or for people like them.

So I really, really don't get what you're complaining about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:And despite such crushing socialism corporate profits are the highest they have ever been and people are flocking to dividends as a way to cheat on their taxes. What do other countries do for tax structures relating to investment payouts? I know it's not nearly so contentious an issue in europe or the asias.

Dividends you receive here are treated as part of your ordinary income. So if you earned $60,000 from your job, and received $10,000 in dividends, you'd be taxed the same as a person who earned $70,000 from their job.

The other part is that the tax system recognises taxes already paid on income and gives you a credit for it. So to go back to the example above, the company would have already paid 30% company on that $10,000 income, leaving you with only $7,000 as a dividend payment. But the system works to basically say 'well some of your tax for the year has already been paid, so we'll consider you to have received $10,000 in dividend income, but to have personally already paid $3,000 in tax'. So your assessable income would be the $60,000 you received in salary, plus the $7,000 you receive in dividends, plus the $3,000 you received in tax credits, for a total of $70,000. But then you'd get a tax credit for $3,000, because the system considers you to have already paid $3,000 in taxes.

The end result for your tax position is exactly the same as if the company had never been taxed at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:How are receiving dividends cheating on your taxes?

When the company tax and dividend tax rates combined are lower than the top marginal rate of tax for ordinary income, it becomes better for the individual to shift his income into dividends, by setting up shell companies. So instead of receiving payments as a contractor, I set up sebster incorporated, and have my employer pay my company for my services, which I then receive as dividends.

It isn't cheating because it is legal (in most cases, if you do it right), but it is certainly sun-optimal for a tax system to encourage people to play such games with how their income is defined. Which is why, as I've said many times here, the simple solution is to treat all income earned as part of your total assessable income, and forget about the source.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Half of America doesn't pay income taxes.

Half of America is paid so little that they cannot be taxed, lest it put them into poverty.

I'll never stop being amazed that there are people out there who see that as a problem with the tax code, and not with the distribution of income.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:So? The wealth that is generating the income has already been taxed. I don't see why it should be taxed again for earning interest or gains.

You're right that it shouldn't be taxed again. It should only be taxed once, like all other income.

You're absolutely, 100% positively completely wrong when you use that to pretend it should be taxed the same as all other income, though.

Also, to answer your earlier question: Europe and Asia generally don't double tax corporate earnings.[/quote

Whether it gets taxed once, twice, or seven times doesn't mean anything. What matters is the total level of taxation, and in this regard the US is lower than most European countries.

He's right.

If you run a corporation and all of a sudden the government tells you that your income will be reduced by 20%, what would you do? Probably raise prices, if you can afford to. (Of course, you would get undercut by foreign firms not subject to the same tax rates, but hey, too bad for American jobs).

I continue to be puzzled how the people who are so deeply in love with the market can understand so little about it. I mean, this is just straight up demand and supply, and this exact example is something you should have done in either Year 8 or Year 9.

When all producers face the same increase in a cost, in this case taxes, then the supply graph will adjust upwards. As tax is a variable cost, the graph will shift to an increasing angle (as opposed to a fixed cost which would maintain the angle of the supply line, but 'lift' the whole line).

You can feel free to plot this out on a piece of paper, and doing so will allow you to notice two things. First is that the price increases, but that it doesn't increase to totally cover the increased cost. The second thing you'll notice is that supply declines. Play around with the angles if you want. Sooner or later you'll realise the only way for the whole of the cost to passed on to consumers is if demand is perfectly inelastic (that is, demand is a perfectly vertical line). Given that only happens with essential goods, we know the original assertion is mistaken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:The wealth of the corporation is separate from the wealth of the shareholder because they are legally separate entities.

Which is utterly meaningless. The company is just a legal convenience, a way of avoiding an impossible nexus of contracts in which each shareholder is deemed as being in contract with every supplier and every employer for the company.

It makes absolutely no fething sense on any level to tax a person who generated $100,000 in dividends differently to a person who generated $100,000 from their sole tradership.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

broodstar wrote:No Sir, it is I who am convinced that you don't know what is going and when you take the time to research and add up all the little taxes around you, you'll find at you are actually being taxed 75% of your income.

If that were true, government would be taking in 75% of total US GDP every year in revenue. US GDP in 2011 was $15,011 trillion. US revenue in 2011 was $2.302 trillion, or 15%.

So, basically, in conclusion, you're wrong by a factor of six, which puts you pretty firmly in the bonkers category.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

broodstar wrote:The Federal government isn't supposed to be doing social welfare programs. The government to jobs, provide for the common defense and and monitor state to state trade.

The Federal Government is suppose to do what the people elect it to do, within the boundaries of the constitution. Given you have 200 years of elected representatives building a social welfare network, and these activities have passed constitutional check... then basically your claim above is completely, 100% wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

broodstar wrote:So, not only are you being taxed for your get your income but also being taxed for using that income. Take a look around examples of that are everywhere.

Are you actually trying to introduce sales tax as piece of new information? How old are you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:If you could have taken the hit to your profits, why didn't you drop your price earlier in order to get more customers?

What? Are you treating the profit as the fixed component? What in the holy hell is that? Have you ever studied economics or business in your life?