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.

Frazzled wrote:So he pays more taxes than he makes? I'm impressed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Taxes aren't about being fair.

They have two purposes.

1. To raise the revenue required for government spending.

2. To distort market prices in order to provide incentives for or against behaviour such as smoking or installing solar panels.

In a socialist nation, taxes are used to redistribute wealth from the richest in favour of the poorest through government spending on education, healthcare and so on. Some people see that as fair.

I'd proffer the most important reason for taxation for politicians is neither, but instead is about rewarding the special interests that gave them money to run.

I think that is true in many nations.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Who work less hours for more pay while spending a significantly smaller percentage of their income on basic necessities. Capitalism isn't fair, why the feth would capitalist taxes be?

The argument from fairness is little more than a moralistic crutch, as you've recognized, since its effectively meaningless in an environment which is 'fair' only in narrow circumstances. Hell, I haven't heard the "its unfair" argument used to peddle anything beyond populist drivel to people who are unlikely to do anything but benefit from a progressive tax system.

A much better argument stems from the increase in investment that theoretically stems from lower taxes in the upper income tiers.

ShumaGorath wrote:Yes, opposition like demanding offshore torture prisons be shut down, or demanding that the government stop wiretapping its citizens. I wish I had the blinders you have on, it must be a colorful world of socialists vs good red blooded americans.

Is that the best you can do? Bleat like a good liberal sheep? "Baaaah... torture". "Baaaah... wiretap." "Baaah... blinders".

So how is that Gitmo closing going anyway? Last I checked we still had terrorists there.

ShumaGorath wrote:I'm pretty sure your smelling your own bs.

No, my gak smells like Geritol and Asparagus. It's most certainly yours. It smells like Marx.

Maybe I'll un-plonk you in twenty years when you get the crap scraped out of your ears, sonny. Until then go away and let the grown ups talk.

Is that the best you can do? Bleat like a good liberal sheep? "Baaaah... torture". "Baaaah... wiretap." "Baaah... blinders".

Better than crying like a bitch. "Waaaah... Taxes". "Waaaah... Government." "waaaaaah... liberals."

Maybe I'll un-plonk you in twenty years when you get the crap scraped out of your ears, sonny. Until then go away and let the grown ups talk.

Don't you have a teaparty to attend? What are you doing here on the internet, I thought it was a liberal boondoggle that you were supposed to hate?

The Green Git wrote:
Maybe I'll un-plonk you in twenty years when you get the crap scraped out of your ears, sonny. Until then go away and let the grown ups talk.

Is this supposed to be an example of how grown-ups talk?

Green Git and Shuma should do a radio show together.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Green Git and Shuma should do a radio show together.

I would probably end up going to jail.

And the events leading up to that would make for damn good radio.

ShumaGorath wrote:

The Green Git wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote: <much atrocious typing snipped>
8. Who would you like to be Prisident and why? Policy please not I llike him/her.
Here is your chance to make your case withough mentioning Democrats, just your policy ideas.

Dear Lord, given the spelling and grammar above it's no wonder you're liberal. You should go slap your school teacher(s).

And you should get slapped by yours. Repeatedly. Until you aren't moving.

The collapse of the banking industry and the auto industry was largely overblown IMHO. Ford, Toyota, VW, Honda, etc.

Honda, VW, and Toyota were all foreign owned and not subject to federal bailout offers. Of the big three GW and Chrysler were in very real danger of defaulting (Chrysler did). Without aid GM may still be around (though it's unlikely they would without a large and impactful restructuring further effecting unemployment rates), but chrysler would not. As for the bank industry, if you think that was overblown you really need to pay better attention. It was bigger than the government and media liked to say (The government didn't want to tell it straight and the media has a hard time explaining difficult concepts to stupid people). Without government assistance to the banking industry the very real truth would have unemployment likely around 20% and still rising steadily as the American economy went into total collapse over a period of years.

That isnt true at all. Almost every Honda, Toyota, and a good part of VWs that are sold in America, are built in America, by unions..(and ROBOTS! PEW PEW!!). Therefore, are subject to the same Fed bailout offers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Motor_North_America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Motor_Sales,_U.S.A.,_Inc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Liberty_Auto_Plant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marysville_Auto_Plant
http://www.ohio.honda.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group_of_America

if they operate within our country and our laws (HA!), they are subject to all the financial troubles, tribulations, and escapades that all of the other companies are.


I will only ever buy a VW (85-92) a Subaru, or a Toyota....American cars are gak.

Tyyr wrote:And the events leading up to that would make for damn good radio.

But much better television.

That isnt true at all. Almost every Honda, Toyota, and a good part of VWs that are sold in America, are built in America, by unions..(and ROBOTS! PEW PEW!!). Therefore, are subject to the same Fed bailout offers.

Does being subject to u.s. law mean that they can be subject to bailout offers? I know they weren't requested or offered to the companies in question, and I didn't believe that a public buyout could even occur (unless it was forced) to a foreign firm.

dogma wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote: Our corporate tax is also high in name only, as their are numerous and widely used holes in the code that allow corporations to circumvent large portions of their tax burden.

The issue is that our current, effective corporate tax is still the 5th highest in the developed world; encouraging companies to report income abroad, and thereby reduce tax revenue. Its very likely that the government could generate more revenue by undercutting these offshore tax shelters; especially given that GAO estimates from 2008 reported that 68% of US corporation report no tax liability due to overseas income. There's also something to be said for simplifying the tax code in order to ease the creation of small businesses; at least insofar as that's a wonderful conservative MacGuffin.

Edit: That's to say nothing of foreign corporations that would be encouraged to report income in the United States.

Subsidiaries reporting overseas income should receive a tax credit for tax paid overseas, but the net should still be paid when the money is recognised by the parent company.

But if you really want to reform company tax you need to stop double dipping - taxing profits when made by the company and again when paid as dividends to the shareholder. A tax credit equal to the tax paid on that income isn't just sensible tax policy, it's a basic issue of fairness (sorry about using that word, and while agree it makes no sense in a discussion of progressive tax rates, it makes perfect sense in a discussion of only taxing an item of income once).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:The tax code in both the USA and UK need to be simplified.

A lot of money is wasted calculating how much tax to pay and then calculating that the first calculation was correct.

Progressive taxation is not responsible for the complexity of the tax code. You can build an excel program to calculate tax on a progressive scale in about a minute - it's a very simple thing.

The complexity of the tax code comes from the difficulty of determining income. Should an amount earned this year but paid next year be recognised in this year's return, or next year's? Winning $10k at the track is a windfall gain and shouldn't be taxed, but what if the guy spends six days a week at the track, and gambling earnings are his primary source of income? If you're paid $100k for a work injury, what portion is capital for the loss of your arm and untaxable, and how much is compensation for lost income and should be taxed? It's a capital gain when you sell your business premises, but what if you buy and sell three or four business premises a year - when does that become ordinary income?

Once you've figured all of that out then applying a progressive taxation model is the easiest thing.

There's also an issue of functionality - there is no flat tax rate that can provide enough to run the most basic level of government service without being so high it cripples the poor. The burden can't be lower than 20%, but do you really want to take $2,000 off of someone making just $10,000 a year?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Primarch wrote:Probably the best way is the Fair Tax. If a guy buys a Toyota for 10,000 and pays 26% tax on it, he will pay a total of around 12,600 bucks. If a guy pays 100,000 for something nicer, then he will end up paying 110,000 bucks for it. The rich have nicer things, and will pay extra tax for them. But it's their choice at that point. Also, a sales tax would get all the illegal immigrants, as well as criminals who don't pay taxes currently.

Why does the luxury item carry a 10% tax, while the basic item carry a 26% tax?

It would also allow for letting most of the IRS go find other work.

No, it really won't. Administering tax on sales is a time consuming activity. Necessary, in order to tax under the counter income, but still requiring a substantial bureacracy.

sebster wrote:But if you really want to reform company tax you need to stop double dipping - taxing profits when made by the company and again when paid as dividends to the shareholder. A tax credit equal to the tax paid on that income isn't just sensible tax policy, it's a basic issue of fairness (sorry about using that word, and while agree it makes no sense in a discussion of progressive tax rates, it makes perfect sense in a discussion of only taxing an item of income once).

If you're talking about what I think you are, there's also an issue of efficiency; money is plowed back into investments for the company at too high of a rate, and investments that could have been used more productively instead go on to bloat corporations that would otherwise not recieve the additional funding.

Orkeosaurus wrote:If you're talking about what I think you are, there's also an issue of efficiency; money is plowed back into investments for the company at too high of a rate, and investments that could have been used more productively instead go on to bloat corporations that would otherwise not recieve the additional funding.

That would be an issue if the company wasn't taxed at all - as there is then a tax incentive to keep money in the company and avoid ever paying tax. But with an imputed tax system the company still pays tax on profits made, it's just that a tax credit is given equal to the tax already paid when a dividend is made.

Say a company makes $100 profit per share, and is required to pay $20 tax on that. The company then pays its dividend of what is left, $80, but that comes with a $20 tax credit for the tax already paid by the company. The individual then puts $100 into the income side of his tax return ($80 cash + $20 tax credit) and then pays his personal tax rate of 30% for a total of $30 owing, but claims the $20 tax credit, and only pays $10 tax. The effect is that money earned from company dividends is taxed at the same rate as money earned from any other source.

I think W actually talked about introducing something like this in the US, another example of him managing to do exactly none of the things I actually liked about him.

I think we might be agreeing.

sebster wrote:I think W actually talked about introducing something like this in the US, another example of him managing to do exactly none of the things I actually liked about him.

He had more pressing things to do, such as learn to buckle his helmet strap and learn how to walk out of closets.

After eight years, he didn't need that helmet anymore ad he learned to live inside that closet rather than attempt to leave it.

Seriously, if simplifying tax codes was easy, one streamline tax could of been calculated by Lex Luthor years ago. Keep in mind, Lex is busy fighting the Soviet's Superman, and ergo has little time to deviate from protecting American from him and Braniac's global Communist state.

Taxes upon taxes are meant to fund various initiatives in order to pay for different things. Thanks to the complexity of society, I believe double taxing is overlooked because one smarmy legislator can find a way to annul a tax without having to repeal, only for some other legislator to re-enact that tax when needed.

sebster wrote:

dogma wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote: Our corporate tax is also high in name only, as their are numerous and widely used holes in the code that allow corporations to circumvent large portions of their tax burden.

The issue is that our current, effective corporate tax is still the 5th highest in the developed world; encouraging companies to report income abroad, and thereby reduce tax revenue. Its very likely that the government could generate more revenue by undercutting these offshore tax shelters; especially given that GAO estimates from 2008 reported that 68% of US corporation report no tax liability due to overseas income. There's also something to be said for simplifying the tax code in order to ease the creation of small businesses; at least insofar as that's a wonderful conservative MacGuffin.

Edit: That's to say nothing of foreign corporations that would be encouraged to report income in the United States.

Subsidiaries reporting overseas income should receive a tax credit for tax paid overseas, but the net should still be paid when the money is recognised by the parent company.

But if you really want to reform company tax you need to stop double dipping - taxing profits when made by the company and again when paid as dividends to the shareholder. A tax credit equal to the tax paid on that income isn't just sensible tax policy, it's a basic issue of fairness (sorry about using that word, and while agree it makes no sense in a discussion of progressive tax rates, it makes perfect sense in a discussion of only taxing an item of income once).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:The tax code in both the USA and UK need to be simplified.

A lot of money is wasted calculating how much tax to pay and then calculating that the first calculation was correct.

Progressive taxation is not responsible for the complexity of the tax code. You can build an excel program to calculate tax on a progressive scale in about a minute - it's a very simple thing.

The complexity of the tax code comes from the difficulty of determining income. Should an amount earned this year but paid next year be recognised in this year's return, or next year's? Winning $10k at the track is a windfall gain and shouldn't be taxed, but what if the guy spends six days a week at the track, and gambling earnings are his primary source of income? If you're paid $100k for a work injury, what portion is capital for the loss of your arm and untaxable, and how much is compensation for lost income and should be taxed? It's a capital gain when you sell your business premises, but what if you buy and sell three or four business premises a year - when does that become ordinary income?

Once you've figured all of that out then applying a progressive taxation model is the easiest thing.

There's also an issue of functionality - there is no flat tax rate that can provide enough to run the most basic level of government service without being so high it cripples the poor. The burden can't be lower than 20%, but do you really want to take $2,000 off of someone making just $10,000 a year?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Primarch wrote:Probably the best way is the Fair Tax. If a guy buys a Toyota for 10,000 and pays 26% tax on it, he will pay a total of around 12,600 bucks. If a guy pays 100,000 for something nicer, then he will end up paying 110,000 bucks for it. The rich have nicer things, and will pay extra tax for them. But it's their choice at that point. Also, a sales tax would get all the illegal immigrants, as well as criminals who don't pay taxes currently.

Why does the luxury item carry a 10% tax, while the basic item carry a 26% tax?

It would also allow for letting most of the IRS go find other work.

No, it really won't. Administering tax on sales is a time consuming activity. Necessary, in order to tax under the counter income, but still requiring a substantial bureacracy.

Bolded part. Because I'm an idiot and posted it wrong. Both should be at 26%, so it should be 126,000. Thanks for catching that.


Clay

Primarch wrote:Bolded part. Because I'm an idiot and posted it wrong. Both should be at 26%, so it should be 126,000. Thanks for catching that.


Clay

Cool. Do think society is sustainable if people presently earning around $10k are paying a 26% consumption tax?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:He had more pressing things to do, such as learn to buckle his helmet strap and learn how to walk out of closets.

After eight years, he didn't need that helmet anymore ad he learned to live inside that closet rather than attempt to leave it.

All this talk about closets makes me think you're implying W was secretly gay. I really, really want that to be true, but I don't know why.

Seriously, if simplifying tax codes was easy, one streamline tax could of been calculated by Lex Luthor years ago. Keep in mind, Lex is busy fighting the Soviet's Superman, and ergo has little time to deviate from protecting American from him and Braniac's global Communist state.

Taxes upon taxes are meant to fund various initiatives in order to pay for different things. Thanks to the complexity of society, I believe double taxing is overlooked because one smarmy legislator can find a way to annul a tax without having to repeal, only for some other legislator to re-enact that tax when needed.

yeah, it doesn't seem to matter that you're taxing income at two different rates, when there's big evil corporation to tax, or that money made by big, evil corporations ends up as dividend income which really isn't different to any other kind of income.

Bush used to be a cheerleader, I think.

sebster wrote:
Subsidiaries reporting overseas income should receive a tax credit for tax paid overseas, but the net should still be paid when the money is recognised by the parent company.

As I understand it, in the US, the dividends received deduction applies to subsidiaries in a fashion that escalates with ownership. For example, if a given corporation owns 80% or more of a given subsidiary it can deduct 100% of the dividends received from its taxable profit.

dogma wrote:

sebster wrote:
Subsidiaries reporting overseas income should receive a tax credit for tax paid overseas, but the net should still be paid when the money is recognised by the parent company.

As I understand it, in the US, the dividends received deduction applies to subsidiaries in a fashion that escalates with ownership. For example, if a given corporation owns 80% or more of a given subsidiary it can deduct 100% of the dividends received from its taxable profit.

But is granted a tax credit up to the amount of tax paid, or is it deemed non-taxable income? I don't know US tax law that well, but I know it well enough that assuming what's sensible isn't a very wise course.

Subsidies, tax credits, subsidiaries...this thread is a real barn burner.

sebster wrote:
But is granted a tax credit up to the amount of tax paid, or is it deemed non-taxable income? I don't know US tax law that well, but I know it well enough that assuming what's sensible isn't a very wise course.

I think its non-taxable income, as the purpose was to avoid triple-taxation. However, my specialty is macro as an extension of international policy. I only took finance and accounting in order to have a last ditch employment route.