|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
Quote:
for instance, you own a company that makes widgets. You make those widgets out of steel.
Widgets are little links on the screen of a cell phone or a tablet.. why on earth would you make them out of steel? 
Quote:
So, the steel company that sells you the steel must collect sales/consumption tax and then pass it on to the proper entity. We'll need IRS agents to watch over that as well.
As I understand it only the end user is taxed.. so if I buy steel to make widgets, then I don't pay tax on the steel, the person who buys the widgets pays the tax. It would require some agents of the IRS to make sure it is being properly tracked though because while it is simpler than what we have, it would have its nuances.
Not from my stand point,, I'd tax them both. The company that buys the steel gets taxed on the steel purchase and the end user of the widget gets taxed when he buys it.
Yes, it's double tax, but so is paying income tax AND sales tax. So what's the diff.
Oh, and I have no idea what a widget really is.. 
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Not from my stand point,, I'd tax them both. The company that buys the steel gets taxed on the steel purchase and the end user of the widget gets taxed when he buys it.
Yes, it's double tax, but so is paying income tax AND sales tax. So what's the diff.
Not advocating, just stating how the Fair Tax, as designed, works. Only the end user pays the tax. If you are building a car, none of the raw materials or components in it are taxed at all as they move around. Only the person who buys the car pays tax one time.. that's it.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,297
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,297 |
You will never see the States give up on their revenue from their taxes...income, sale, or otherwise...they will not agree to be folded into the federal tax program.
They would have to also switch to a higer sales/comsumption tax if they did away with their own income tax.
Same for the Cities...we can't even get them to standardize what is taxable in Ohio... and move to one reporting agency...let alone align collection efforts under some federal program.
Employees are the greatest "police" for reporting of income...there would be no such thing under a consumption-based tax system.
What stops the rich from making money here...and spending it in other countries where there is no consumption tax?
The whole thing is designed to sell books and get people distracted from the real problem...which is spending.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
The whole thing is designed to sell books and get people distracted from the real problem...which is spending.
I think tax reform coupled with a drastic reduction in spending is necessary. I'd rather concentrate on the spending aspect first then move on to taxes after the dust settles. Unfortunately, I don't think anything at all is going to happen until it is too late (if it already isn't too late) 
I just wish I knew when that too late was as I wouldn't send my quarterly tax payment in  On a side note, if we really want tax reform, make EVERYONE pay quarterly and get an idea of how much is actually getting taken. I astounds me how many people don't know what their gross vs net pay is.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I have said that for years... if people actually had to write a check for their taxes we would have had a revolution a long time ago.. but having employers withhold it and pay it for you, then you get some of it back in April.. most people have no idea how much they really pay, just whether they owe or get some back at the end of the year...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
Quote:
Not from my stand point,, I'd tax them both. The company that buys the steel gets taxed on the steel purchase and the end user of the widget gets taxed when he buys it.
Yes, it's double tax, but so is paying income tax AND sales tax. So what's the diff.
Not advocating, just stating how the Fair Tax, as designed, works. Only the end user pays the tax. If you are building a car, none of the raw materials or components in it are taxed at all as they move around. Only the person who buys the car pays tax one time.. that's it.
I can't live with that.. Corporations need to carry their share of the load as well. They are getting out of 7.45% of employment related taxes, and then to let them out of Corporate tax won't work for me..
Corporations would then live a tax free life..
That I can't abide by.. there would have to be something they pay..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
You will never see the States give up on their revenue from their taxes...income, sale, or otherwise...they will not agree to be folded into the federal tax program.
They would have to also switch to a higer sales/comsumption tax if they did away with their own income tax.
Same for the Cities...we can't even get them to standardize what is taxable in Ohio... and move to one reporting agency...let alone align collection efforts under some federal program.
Employees are the greatest "police" for reporting of income...there would be no such thing under a consumption-based tax system.
What stops the rich from making money here...and spending it in other countries where there is no consumption tax?
The whole thing is designed to sell books and get people distracted from the real problem...which is spending.
well, if you give up before trying, they you won't succeed at anything. a change is needed cause what we do now isn't working. Never really has to be honest.
Did you read the part about how I'm not an expert and that I was sure there holes in the plan? well, you find those holes, and you fix them
As for states and cities,, if the revenue doesn't change or grows, they'll go along with it. show them value to it and they'll buy in.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I can't live with that.. Corporations need to carry their share of the load as well. They are getting out of 7.45% of employment related taxes, and then to let them out of Corporate tax won't work for me..
Corporations would then live a tax free life..
That I can't abide by.. there would have to be something they pay..
Why? Just because it seems morally reprehensible that they don't pay taxes?
The theory is that if they aren't paying payroll taxes and they aren't paying sales taxes on the raw materials that they buy and pass through the pipeline that the cost of these intermediate goods will be cheaper all the way to the final consumer. That is the only way you can have a 23% consumer tax (or whatever it is) without the goods being a lot more expensive. If you continue to tax this material every time it changes hands, which is what you are advocating, goods will be a lot more expensive once they are taxed at the end.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,547
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,547 |
The US GDP is roughly $15 trillion. The federal budget is roughly $3.5 trillion, then you would need a sales tax of right around 23% (as you said) to pay just for the federal budget as it stands today. This would have to include food and everything.
If we then add in the "fair" help for the poor, where we would rebate their sales tax, then the numbers would skew even further.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Not responding to you, specifically, but I really didn't have the time to go through all of those responses. At first glance, it appeared that everyone is talking about the tax code (which is an abomination) and how to screw around with it or replace it. Let's be real about it. We have to reduce the size (and yes, the power of) the federal, state and even our city governments in addition to restructuring the tax code to be most beneficial (generating the most revenue possible and levying the least possible burden on the people). Just today, it's been reported ( in the UK Telegraph) that the Chinese are threatening the Japanese with economic destruction. We face the same kind of extortion attempts with our borrowing. The government can no longer find investors in US bonds so Bernanke helped out Obama by instituting QE3, using the Federal Reserve to purchase US Treasuries to the tune of $40 billion per month. If you think that the state of affairs is bad now, wait until it really comes crashing down.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
Quote:
I can't live with that.. Corporations need to carry their share of the load as well. They are getting out of 7.45% of employment related taxes, and then to let them out of Corporate tax won't work for me..
Corporations would then live a tax free life..
That I can't abide by.. there would have to be something they pay..
Why? Just because it seems morally reprehensible that they don't pay taxes?
The theory is that if they aren't paying payroll taxes and they aren't paying sales taxes on the raw materials that they buy and pass through the pipeline that the cost of these intermediate goods will be cheaper all the way to the final consumer. That is the only way you can have a 23% consumer tax (or whatever it is) without the goods being a lot more expensive. If you continue to tax this material every time it changes hands, which is what you are advocating, goods will be a lot more expensive once they are taxed at the end.
It has NO moral values that I'm diconnected with,. but a corporation NOT paying some tax makes me sick to my stomach. They make the money, they need to pay like the rest of us..
Now, if we are paying based on what we buy, fine, make it that way for american companies. if there are exclusions for individuals, I'm good with making them avaliable to industry
Are you saying that american industry should pay NO INCOME TAX.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
Quote:
I can't live with that.. Corporations need to carry their share of the load as well. They are getting out of 7.45% of employment related taxes, and then to let them out of Corporate tax won't work for me..
Corporations would then live a tax free life..
That I can't abide by.. there would have to be something they pay..
Why? Just because it seems morally reprehensible that they don't pay taxes?
The theory is that if they aren't paying payroll taxes and they aren't paying sales taxes on the raw materials that they buy and pass through the pipeline that the cost of these intermediate goods will be cheaper all the way to the final consumer. That is the only way you can have a 23% consumer tax (or whatever it is) without the goods being a lot more expensive. If you continue to tax this material every time it changes hands, which is what you are advocating, goods will be a lot more expensive once they are taxed at the end.
Oh, and I think I pointed out, I don't know what the actual number needs to be, but I was thinking of a number upwards of 35% consumption tax. It might not actually have to be that high once you take the many changes in expenses that need to take place.
I mean, no matter what tax payment plan you hatch, it has to include cuts to government spending..
I was thinking of something.. came to mind because a relative of my neighbor lives in what is called section 8 housing. For the uninformed, this is housing that is subsidized by the federal government. The renter might pay 200 a month, but the government might pay 3 or 4 hundred. The housing is mostly substandard, low end, junk housing. usually rat holes to be honest.
but, here's the deal, this family has been living in section 8 housing for years and years.
I'm ok with helping people up out of the mess they get into.. I'm not good with carrying them forever. so a limit needs set.. I don't know what the right number is.. 2 years, 3 years.. whatever. But at some point, the day they sign the lease on a section 8 apartment, they need to know, in X period of time, they had better find other arrangements,, because they will no long receive government assistance.
they better take that time to improve their job skills so that at some point, they can move on and pay their own way.
This crap of people liviing off the federal dole forever just doesn't wash with me..never has, never will..
I'm good with helping people up when they are down. in fact, I find it unamerican not to help them up. but damn it, I'm not going to carry them forever. at some point they need to stand on their own two feet.
Now, this excludes Veterans that were injured in war.. I really don't care what they need, whatever it is, we need to provide it.. simple as that.
No fooling, I sincerely cherish out troops. those that fought and got out unscathed and those that came out with legs or hands or some other body part(s) missing.
Our Vets deserve the very best and I mean in a no holds barred fashion.
But a guy that won't work when he's offered a job,, to hell with him.
You guys all know I'm in the Temp business. I offer people on unemployment jobs all the time. Now, in my case, things are a little different. Most of my jobs are engineering related, so even a low end engineer is going to make 3 or 4 times working for me as a temp then he does on Unemployment,, yet, every once in a while, I'll get someone turn down a job.
I could turn them in, but I've not done it yet. But I"m getting closer and closer to doing it.
we have a helluva lot of lazy people in america. living off the fat of the land, I'm i'm not into allowing that to continue.
Look, if someone is sick, needs help, can't work, I mean, really can't work, then as americans, we gotta stand by our fellow man.. those aren't the folks I"m talking aboiut.
I'm talking about the ones that are able to work, but find ways around it. I'd just as soon throw them out with the trash.
help people up,, Good, carry them forever,, not good.. On this topic, Mitt Romney and I agree.. unfortunatly, that's about the only thing we agree on.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
It has NO moral values that I'm diconnected with,. but a corporation NOT paying some tax makes me sick to my stomach. They make the money, they need to pay like the rest of us.
This view is fundamentally flawed. Corporations don't pay taxes, period. Sure, they show up as paying taxes (or in GE's case, not even putting on the face of paying them). Corporate taxes are paid by those that purchase their products or services because the taxes are added to the price.
For example, let's say that the federal corporate tax is 10%. Every corporation is going to add 10% to the cost of the product or service that they provide. Period. They aren't going to assume the cost of these taxes just to please anyone. They're about making profits and anything that cuts into those profits will be reacted to negatively. If the product or service becomes too costly that their customers begin to reduce their consumption of the product or use of the service, then the corporation has to find ways to cut costs to keep profits consistent or even grow them. The primary place to cut costs is in the workforce. They'll trim employee levels first and demand more productivity out of those that they continue to employ. If these measures prove not to be sufficient, they will either trim more employees, cut benefits or scale back on the product lines or services provided. They may even relocate operations to more advantageous locales. These may be in more business friendly states or even overseas where regulations are fewer and pay rates are much less. Productivity per capita may not be on par with domestic producers, but the reduced cost of benefits paid, regulatory burdens and other costs can make these options acceptable to maintain the profitability.
Quote:
Are you saying that American industry should pay NO INCOME TAX?
I'll put it this way, they're not paying the Income Tax anyway. They may (or may not) pay the taxes officially, but the cost is passed onto the consumer. Eventually, the cost is paid by both the consumer AND the workers that used to produce the products or services.
Really, it's that simple.
Coincidentally, the profits made by American corporations overseas is not taxed by the US government until it makes it to America. If a corporation moves those profits into their US holdings, they are slapped with taxation. That's why you read about American companies making profits overseas but not bringing those profits back to America and paying those taxes on them. GE is only one example. Why would they? They already pay the taxes in the country where the profits are made. It doesn't make sense for them to 'bring that money home' only to see it taxed again (and at a higher rate) than if they just left it overseas.
When someone screams about businesses (including American companies with international markets) not paying their "fair share" of taxes, all they're really saying is that they, as a consumer, want to pay more for the product or service that they purchase.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,703
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,703 |
In my fairly uneducated opinion, I say we just leave taxes alone at first.
I don't think the government's problem is with how much they take in, it's with how much they spend. The effort has to come from offices/departments within the government to cut their spending. Stop the bleeding. Raising more $$ from taxes does nothing if we're just going to continue pissing it away.
I'm a Lean Six Sigma Black Belt, and I work out of my company's Tijuana, MX facility. My whole job is to run projects that eliminate waste (waste being time/effort, and $ that don't contribute value). Put another way, why would you want to do something in a way that difficult, time-consuming, error prone and, ultimately, costly, when you can do it in a way that's simpler, faster and less costly? It's not the person's fault that the way you're having them complete a task is way more difficult than it should be.
I heard a perfect example of this from a Painseville school not long ago. Having to deal with massive spending cuts to education, schools have imposed certain pay-to-play fees for sports and after-school activities. The fees required to make these after school activities feasible for the school are too expensive for many kids' families. The Marching Band director (a smart dude, in my book) sat down and went through the expenses for his program. He found that a majority of his spending went towards having the marching band play at away games for the school's sports teams. He then proposed to the school board that they eliminate most or all of the road trips for the band and that would eliminate the need for an expensive participation fee. The school board said no, they instituted the fee, and participation dropped by about half.
Stories like that make me really sad and angry that such stupidity is allowed to run important offices/functions within our government and society.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
This view is fundamentally flawed. Corporations don't pay taxes, period. Sure, they show up as paying taxes (or in GE's case, not even putting on the face of paying them). Corporate taxes are paid by those that purchase their products or services because the taxes are added to the price.
LOL you wanna call my thinking flawed then you write this? 
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
This view is fundamentally flawed. Corporations don't pay taxes, period. Sure, they show up as paying taxes (or in GE's case, not even putting on the face of paying them). Corporate taxes are paid by those that purchase their products or services because the taxes are added to the price.
LOL you wanna call my thinking flawed then you write this?
And on the other side of that one could argue that ALL taxes are paid by corporations, since the products purchased by consumers are paid with by earnings they got working for corporations. Kinda a chicken/egg thing really.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This view is fundamentally flawed. Corporations don't pay taxes, period. Sure, they show up as paying taxes (or in GE's case, not even putting on the face of paying them). Corporate taxes are paid by those that purchase their products or services because the taxes are added to the price.
LOL you wanna call my thinking flawed then you write this?
And on the other side of that one could argue that ALL taxes are paid by corporations, since the products purchased by consumers are paid with by earnings they got working for corporations. Kinda a chicken/egg thing really.
Well, in the end, the final purchaser of goods and services effectively pay for the entire process.. Raw materials, shipping, to manufacturing to the seller. And that includes any taxes and tariffs etc.
So I can see where Anarchy was coming from, but to say that corporations don't pay taxes is wrong. it offends me that GE didn't pay any income tax. yet they made MILLIONS selling products all over the USA. as well as the world for that matter.
And here's the funny thing,, When I bought a GE Toaster oven, I payed the retail price plus sales tax. That retail price includes the price of raw materials to make the toaster, the actually manufacturing of the toaster, the shipping of the toaster to the retailer, the retailers markup (profit) and all taxes and tariffs along the way.
But yet, GE Paid no income tax.. if people can't see the fundamental problem there, then I just don't know what to say...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This view is fundamentally flawed. Corporations don't pay taxes, period. Sure, they show up as paying taxes (or in GE's case, not even putting on the face of paying them). Corporate taxes are paid by those that purchase their products or services because the taxes are added to the price.
LOL you wanna call my thinking flawed then you write this?
And on the other side of that one could argue that ALL taxes are paid by corporations, since the products purchased by consumers are paid with by earnings they got working for corporations. Kinda a chicken/egg thing really.
Well, in the end, the final purchaser of goods and services effectively pay for the entire process.. Raw materials, shipping, to manufacturing to the seller. And that includes any taxes and tariffs etc.
So I can see where Anarchy was coming from, but to say that corporations don't pay taxes is wrong. it offends me that GE didn't pay any income tax. yet they made MILLIONS selling products all over the USA. as well as the world for that matter.
And here's the funny thing,, When I bought a GE Toaster oven, I payed the retail price plus sales tax. That retail price includes the price of raw materials to make the toaster, the actually manufacturing of the toaster, the shipping of the toaster to the retailer, the retailers markup (profit) and all taxes and tariffs along the way.
But yet, GE Paid no income tax.. if people can't see the fundamental problem there, then I just don't know what to say...
But how did those corporations produce the goods they sold to consumers? With labor, that they paid for. And in every typical company, they produced a product to sell before they sold it, and most paid workers long before they ever sold a product on the market.
And where does the consumer get the money to pruchase the product?
Like I said, chicken/egg.
Last edited by FloridaFan; 09/20/12 12:21 PM.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This view is fundamentally flawed. Corporations don't pay taxes, period. Sure, they show up as paying taxes (or in GE's case, not even putting on the face of paying them). Corporate taxes are paid by those that purchase their products or services because the taxes are added to the price.
LOL you wanna call my thinking flawed then you write this?
And on the other side of that one could argue that ALL taxes are paid by corporations, since the products purchased by consumers are paid with by earnings they got working for corporations. Kinda a chicken/egg thing really.
Well, in the end, the final purchaser of goods and services effectively pay for the entire process.. Raw materials, shipping, to manufacturing to the seller. And that includes any taxes and tariffs etc.
So I can see where Anarchy was coming from, but to say that corporations don't pay taxes is wrong. it offends me that GE didn't pay any income tax. yet they made MILLIONS selling products all over the USA. as well as the world for that matter.
And here's the funny thing,, When I bought a GE Toaster oven, I payed the retail price plus sales tax. That retail price includes the price of raw materials to make the toaster, the actually manufacturing of the toaster, the shipping of the toaster to the retailer, the retailers markup (profit) and all taxes and tariffs along the way.
But yet, GE Paid no income tax.. if people can't see the fundamental problem there, then I just don't know what to say...
But how did those corporations produce the goods they sold to consumers? With labor, that they paid for. And in every typical company, they produced a product to sell before they sold it, and most paid workers long before they ever sold a product on the market.
And where does the consumer get the money to pruchase the product?
Like I said, chicken/egg.
did I not add in manufacturing to the COGS or (cost of goods sold) equation.
Part of manufacturing is the wages paid to the people that build the product.. I covered it. But that's not INCOME TAX., it's PAYROLL TAX. Don't confuse the two items.
When you own a corporation, you pay a portion of the payroll taxes. Plus you pay state and federal unemployment insurance, workers comp insurance, CAT Tax if you are in Ohio and have high enough sales volume.
Then, as the owner of the corporation you pay yourself a salary and you pay income tax on that income.
What I'm hearing here is that some folks don't want corporations to pay an income tax on the profit they make... And that sickens me.
Why in the hell should GE get off scott free? (I'm just using them as an example) there are plenty of corporations that pay income tax..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
I thought we were still debating WHO was the source of the money that is eventually paid as taxes, I'll bow out now, as my argument were not meant to be literal or the one and only answer just stating that the obvious that the money goes in circles, and I'm not sure there is a true "source" other than the US Mint.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
I thought we were still debating WHO was the source of the money that is eventually paid as taxes, I'll bow out now, as my argument were not meant to be literal or the one and only answer just stating that the obvious that the money goes in circles, and I'm not sure there is a true "source" other than the US Mint.
I actually never was until someone else brought it up. This whole thing is about our national debt and how best to deal with it in a fair and equitable manner.
Somewhere along the line, I thought a Flat tax or even a Consumption tax would be a possibility and that meant that you and I and corporations should all pay their fair share based on either a flat tax or a consumption tax or some other means.
that's when the whole thing came up that Corporations don't pay taxes because essentially they pass on those costs to the end user (paraphrasing) and it's absolutely true, but it's my contention that a corporation is no different than you or I, they should be required to pay a tax on whatever measurable you wish to use.
Apparently there are people out there that think corporations shouldn't pay income tax.. That's an idea I can live with.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
if people can't see the fundamental problem there, then I just don't know what to say...
Oh I see the fundamental problem.... you should have bought a KitchenAid. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
Quote:
if people can't see the fundamental problem there, then I just don't know what to say...
Oh I see the fundamental problem.... you should have bought a KitchenAid.
only if they are made using hand tooled widgets..
LOL
and your probably right, aren't kitchenaid products made here in ohio?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
if people can't see the fundamental problem there, then I just don't know what to say...
Oh I see the fundamental problem.... you should have bought a KitchenAid.
only if they are made using hand tooled widgets..
LOL
and your probably right, aren't kitchenaid products made here in ohio?
I don't know, fortunately we have a KitchenAid rep right here.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
if people can't see the fundamental problem there, then I just don't know what to say...
Oh I see the fundamental problem.... you should have bought a KitchenAid.
only if they are made using hand tooled widgets..
LOL
and your probably right, aren't kitchenaid products made here in ohio?
I don't know, fortunately we have a KitchenAid rep right here.
I actually think they are, somewhere down by dayton or Cinci.. I'll check on it later
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
It is an economic truism that you can NOT effectively tax a corporation. Any increase in cost is simply passed on to the end user. A fair marketplace and competition insures that profits remain reasonable. Those profits actually accrue to the stockholders, who pay taxes on them when they receive them as dividends or profit on the sale of the stock. What you want to do is tax them TWICE.
A consumption tax was tried a several years ago for luxury boats. Taxing the rich is ALWAYS a popular strategy because they are so few in number. What happened was that boat buyers simply bought overseas, US boatbuilders went out of business in large numbers, many workers lost jobs, the net result was a tremendous loss to the economy. Stupid plan.
On Social Security - I have known since I was 8 years old that my odds of living to collect anything were quite small. Anyone paying even a minimal amount of attention and able to do simple math could easily see that this program could NOT continue forever, I have known this for almost 40 years. Too many people sat around and did NOTHING while over 2 TRILLION dollars was looted from their retirement savings. One poster here actually stated to me that they KNEW about the 2 TRILLION theft and still thought the program was well and efficiently run. When you put dumbasses in charge, and keep voting them back in, don't complain when stupidity happens.
Paying taxes and voting should be tied together. Right now, for every wage-earner, there is one non-working slacker who has an equal say on how those wages should be spent. Fundamental problem. You don't pay taxes, you don't vote. You want to speak your piece in the public forum, find a way to feed yourself or STFU.
Many alternative tax plans are structured to be "revenue-neutral", or even to increase revenue. This is like trying to increase our rushing production by giving Owen Marecic more carries. I really have a hard time understanding how anyone who can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time, and is allowed out alone after dark, can possibly advocate giving the politicians in Washington MORE money. They will spend it and borrow more.
Some one mentioned being willing to die to protect the principles of this Republic. That is very noble and all, but remarkably ineffective. You want something to change, you wait until they come to your door to take your hard-earned wages from you, and you tell them that you are armed, been taking regular target practice, and that you are PREPARED TO KILL to defend the principles of this Republic.
It will take more than one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
It is an economic truism that you can NOT effectively tax a corporation.
As I stated over and over again, corporations put all that into the COGS. In effect we pay the tax.
But please don't tell me or attempt to tell me that a company that shows a profit doesn't pay income tax on it.
I OWN a corporation, I chose to have it lose money, instead paying myself everything it earns, thus paying at a lower individual rate.
A GE has different ways of doing it like showing all their profit outside the US when clearly, they make a profit within the US borders.
Quote:
A consumption tax was tried a several years ago for luxury boats.
You are comparing apples to oranges.,
Quote:
Taxing the rich is ALWAYS a popular strategy because they are so few in number. What happened was that boat buyers simply bought overseas, US boatbuilders went out of business in large numbers, many workers lost jobs, the net result was a tremendous loss to the economy. Stupid plan.
Yup, ill conceived plan no doubt.
Taxing the rich is NOT what I was speaking of.. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Nothing like that ever came out of me.
What did come out of me is this.
If you have a consumption tax based system, those that make more, will spend more, thus pay more. Simple as that.
But they have control over where and when they spend their money. Like you proved with your Boat example.
Now, I don't live in Florida, but I understand they have no state income tax. But Their Sales tax is through the roof.
A few years ago, I looked into moving to Florida. My understanding was (and I admit to limited knowledge on this because before we totally committed to the move, things changed and we stayed in Ohio so I never fleshed this out totally)
But from what I got in the brief conversations was, when I bring my cars to florida, I'm going to pay a hefty tax for the plates and transfer from an Ohio title to an florida title.
So, in the case of he boats, where clearly they were skirting the tax law, there are still ways to retrieve taxes.
As for your assertion that boat builders went out of business.,. I'm sure some did.
But: http://www.rbbi.com/links/boatmanufacturers.htm
There are plenty left in the US. Some are small boat makers, some are make fishing style boats, but there are plenty of High End luxury boat builders in the US.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,297
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,297 |
Quote:
I OWN a corporation, I chose to have it lose money, instead paying myself everything it earns, thus paying at a lower individual rate.
If your corporation lost money, it would not have any earn(ings) to pay to you or any net income on-which to pay taxes. Maybe you pay yourself a salary and that's why the corporation lost money..and you personally pay taxes on the salary...and don't pay corporate taxes on the losses. That makes perfect sense to me.
If you paid yourself wages to such a degree that your corporation lost money, you actually created unneccessary taxable income on your personal return, while simultaneously creating a loss on the corporate return that you cannot use until the corporation shows income in the future.
If you are an S Corp, it ALL passes through to your personal return anyway. You just created additional wages and contributed unneedlessly to FICA/Medicare.
If you are a C-Corp the same applies except the corporate losses do not pass through to you individually. (I would hope you are an S Corp.)
GE is a C Corp.
Their gains/losses stay inside the corporation and the corporation is owned by shareholders...not some guy in the Bahamas.
Quote:
A GE has different ways of doing it like showing all their profit outside the US when clearly, they make a profit within the US borders.
Fixing this abuse does not require an overhaul of corporate tax code.
Just like fixing healthcare did not require an overhaul and govt takeover of health INSURANCE.
Quote:
If you have a consumption tax based system, those that make more, will spend more, thus pay more. Simple as that.
It's not even close to being as simple as that. The very frugal will spend less...even if they have plenty of money. I am sure you know people like that.
The older folks will benefit because when their children are grown up and they no longer spend money on clothes, school supplies, electronics, etc. Those same older folks generally make more money...yet will be spending less.
A Consumption Tax in place of an income tax is wildly popular for people on the downside of spending on their families. I have some Baby Boomer friends who are all about the Consumption Tax...now.
They benefited from tax rules regarding real estate investing...but now that they want to get out of those investments, the tax hit comes home to roost. And they don't think it's fair that they should have to pay income tax when they liquidate their investments. Boo hoo.
The answer? Do away with the income tax (now that it no longer works for THEM) and implement a Consumption Tax (that now would work for them). Quite Boomer-esque actually.
Changing the tax structure is simply a distraction from the problem. Until the govt defines a budget that they will not exceed and how much they "need", it is madness to focus on changing the method for generating the taxes to pay for the budget.
Look at that firepit in the front yard...not the raging wildfire in the backyard.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
I never stated that they DID not, what I was trying to convey is that they SHOULD not.
You are the single stockholder of your corporation. Should your company's profits be calculated, and taxed, BEFORE your salary is paid? Then taxed a SECOND TIME from you as an individual? Replace you with a large group of stockholders, and ask the same question.
Which entity is able to take a given sum of cash, and do effective and productive work with that cash, a government or a corporation? Which one is penalized, including the equivalent of death, for not being efficient enough and which one is not?
Florida sales tax is 6%, not at all "through the roof". Our income derives from convincing people from other places to come here and spend money. The car title transfer fee is around $400.00, compared to $1,800 on a $30,000 car it is less than a quarter of the sales tax revenue. Somewhat of a unique situation because so many non-residents move to Florida. It is meant to encourage buying local.
The boat tax issue was several years ago, some have recovered but many did not.
This was to illustrate the problem with the consumption tax.
A Flat tax is much better. Fair by definition as everyone pays the same percentage of income. I don't quote the Bible as a source much but I often note that GOD advocated a flat tax. 10% across the board. If Gov't can't get it done with that percentage, then cut spending until they can. If you want to feed the poor, save the whales, or help the polar bears, then you can choose to give extra money to someone who can actually do 75 cents or more on the dollar worth of real work for the cash, rather than Gov't which can barely get one-third of that dollar value.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
It is an economic truism that you can NOT effectively tax a corporation. Any increase in cost is simply passed on to the end user.
This is easily proven.
The gas tax in South Carolina is about $.23/gallon less than it is in North Carolina. The average price of gas in South Carolina is about $.25/gallon less than it is in North Carolina.
This is not rocket science. North Carolina's outrageous gas tax isn't sticking it to Exxon, it isn't sticking it to BP, it isn't sticking it to Sheetz or anyplace that sells gas... it's sticking it to me and everybody else that buys gas. We are the end user, we pay every penny of tax along the line, I don't care who actually writes the check to the government, it was my money they used... and to think otherwise is absolutely naive.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
If your corporation lost money, it would not have any earn(ings) to pay to you or any net income on-which to pay taxes.
I said I pay myself all earnings so that the company looks like it broke even or lost a few pennies... Then I pay tax at the lower individual rates.
I have to start showing a profit now.., it doesn't have to be big, but I do have to show one or they (the IRS) begins to question things. So this year, the company will make a couple of thousand dollars and I'll get the rest. Won't amount to much of a difference in real dollars but it looks better.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,941
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,941 |
Quote:
Quote:
If your corporation lost money, it would not have any earn(ings) to pay to you or any net income on-which to pay taxes.
I said I pay myself all earnings so that the company looks like it broke even or lost a few pennies... Then I pay tax at the lower individual rates.
I have to start showing a profit now.., it doesn't have to be big, but I do have to show one or they (the IRS) begins to question things. So this year, the company will make a couple of thousand dollars and I'll get the rest. Won't amount to much of a difference in real dollars but it looks better.
so you are no better than the rich.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If your corporation lost money, it would not have any earn(ings) to pay to you or any net income on-which to pay taxes.
I said I pay myself all earnings so that the company looks like it broke even or lost a few pennies... Then I pay tax at the lower individual rates.
I have to start showing a profit now.., it doesn't have to be big, but I do have to show one or they (the IRS) begins to question things. So this year, the company will make a couple of thousand dollars and I'll get the rest. Won't amount to much of a difference in real dollars but it looks better.
so you are no better than the rich.
Exactly - daman is "scamming" the system. He's cheating. He's a 1 percenter. He's a money hog.
Pathetic person, looking out only for himself......greedy slob.
Oh - wait - you mean..........it's legal according to the tax code? It's not cheating?
Well, good for daman!!!!!
Now - why is Romney thought of any differently? Or ANY rich person? Why jump on ANYONE individually, that is using the laws set up by the IRS, and congress - why jump on them for following the rules and laws?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Why jump on ANYONE individually, that is using the laws set up by the IRS, and congress - why jump on them for following the rules and laws?
Hold on there buddy... there are quite a few wealthy people in the government who are NOT following those rules and they meet regularly. I'm pretty sure Obama calls it a Cabinet Meeting.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
Quote:
Quote:
Why jump on ANYONE individually, that is using the laws set up by the IRS, and congress - why jump on them for following the rules and laws?
Hold on there buddy... there are quite a few wealthy people in the government who are NOT following those rules and they meet regularly. I'm pretty sure Obama calls it a Cabinet Meeting.
Yup, you got me there. But, no one jumps on them. Why is that? There are more tax cheats in this admin...........yet, after they got caught, all they had to do was pay back, plus a tiny little fine......
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... The National Debt
|
|
