Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2016 - 08:50pm PT
|
Econ 1984 - The Purpose of Taxation on the Animal Farm
The main, if not sole purpose of taxes is to transfer wealth to the Pentagon to preserve the illicit gains of government cronies (e.g. Cheney and Walt Disney et alia).
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2016 - 08:55pm PT
|
Everybody just agree that we should have a 15% flat corp tax? Maybe 12%
But let's go 15%. Can't we all agree that's fair?
35% is economic insanity.
Same as the Federal Income Tax, just make it flat - NO DEDUCTIONS. It can even have 3 tiers of rates, just make em FLAT!!!
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2016 - 09:00pm PT
|
Get yourself some history books bluering
Then read them
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2016 - 09:02pm PT
|
Have 'em, read 'em. Have no f*#king idea what yer talking about.....
Care to share? Or just be stupid and obscure?
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2016 - 09:14pm PT
|
Hint
Look up historical tax rates
Then compare what you find with economic indicators
Then provide a definition of what the hell Econ insanity is
Finally compare with internet insanity
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2016 - 09:46pm PT
|
Hint
Look up historical tax rates
Then compare what you find with economic indicators
Then provide a definition of what the hell Econ insanity is
Finally compare with internet insanity
A government collecting more than 30% of any private entity is absurd. They MAY BE entitled to 10-15%.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2016 - 11:07pm PT
|
Jim, I'll have to use that one the next time I teach macro. And Kris, you should know by now that facts have no persuasive power in this thread.
John
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
^^^ Since most of these retards don't know the difference between Debt and Deficit, Kris would have to post an hour long YouTube video explaining the study and graphs before they even understood it.
|
|
clinker
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 1, 2016 - 06:55am PT
|
Apple may finally be bringing some of its enormous offshore cash pile back home.
Just days after the EU hit Apple with a $14.6 billion tax bill, CEO Tim Cook said he expects to transfer billions of dollars in profit to the United States next year.
"We provisioned several billion dollars for the U.S. for payment for as soon as we repatriate it, and right now I would forecast that repatriation to occur next year," Cook said in an interview with Irish broadcaster RTE news.
U.S. companies are supposed to pay federal taxes on their global profits, but the tax on money made overseas is only due when it's brought back to the U.S.
Cook said last year that he would "love to" repatriate Apple's foreign profits but that he can't because "it would cost me 40%." That refers to the combined U.S. federal and state tax rate Apple would likely owe.
Oxfam America estimated in April that Apple (AAPL, Tech30) was holding $181 billion offshore, and that the company's effective tax rate was 25.9% between 2008 and 2014.
Apple says it paid $400 million in taxes in Ireland in 2014, and another $400 million to the U.S.
"In 2014, our worldwide income tax rate was 26.1%...I personally think that's a reasonable level," Cook told RTE.
Related: How Apple paid just 0.005% tax
European officials said Tuesday that Ireland must recover 13 billion euros, plus interest, in unpaid tax from Apple.
The European Commission, which administer EU law, said that the Irish government had granted illegal state aid to Apple by helping it to artificially lower its tax bill for more than 20 years.
The corporate giant paid just $50 in tax for every million it made selling iPhones and iPads to most of the world outside America, the EU claimed, equal to a tax rate of just 0.005% in 2014.
"It's a false number," Cook said. "I have no idea where the number came from. It's not true."
Apple has said it will appeal the EU ruling, and expects to win. Ireland is also expected to appeal, although the government postponed a decision on Wednesday.
Despite the turmoil, the company said it remains committed to its operations in Ireland.
"We've got a long term romance together," says Cook. "It's a 37-year marriage. Like any marriage you go through pothole here or there but we stuck together because we always felt so close to the community and the people there."
Apple is sharing the love?
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
Which is why corporations electing taxation under Subchapter S may have a maximum of 100 shareholders.
I'm not sure how that's relevant to the discussion, unless you're hinting (as I was) that perhaps we should limit this discussion to C-corps only.
Curt
|
|
Jorroh
climber
|
|
"we should get revenues from corporations in a different format, namely user fees".
Doesn't sound very workable. Flat or based on an assessment of use of public goods and services, externalities etc?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
No, Tax deductions exist for political reasons, especially in the Corporate Tax Code.
We largely agree there, if by "tax deductions," you mean deductions allowable by the Internal Revenue Code that differ from GAAP. And you bet the corporations that benefit from those deductions lobbied for them -- and the "public servants" that enacted and enforced them did so to gain support for themselves, at the expense of the general public.
That's why conservatives oppose them. They - as any other subsidy - create crony capitalists.
John
|
|
Jorroh
climber
|
|
"That's why conservatives oppose them."
They don't, republicans are enthusiastic participants in this process. Judging from the huge monetary advantage that republicans have over democrats in this regard, they are in fact far more committed to the process than democrats.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
"we should get revenues from corporations in a different format, namely user fees".
Doesn't sound very workable. Flat or based on an assessment of use of public goods and services, externalities etc?
Why do we charge corporations by their income, while we charge nothing to partnerships or LLC's. We only charge their owners. Why should we charge both corporations and their owners, but only owners for every other type of business organization?
User fees for externalities have been around in the form of effluent charges for pollution since at least the early 1960's, and they work. (See, e.g., the history of the Ruhr in Germany). We don't charge businesses for most services based on their income, but based on their use. In California, for example, the State worker's compensation insurance fund charges number and types of employees, etc., not by the income of the employer. Municipal water, sewer, trash, utilities, etc., don't get charged to businesses or individuals by income, but by use.
We obviously need a proxy for police, fire, national defense, etc., but I submit that something in the nature of a property tax (which businesses already pay for both personal and real property at the local level) would be a much better proxy than corporate income, and would cost no more to compute since businesses already report the necessary data.
Again, the issue is whether corporate income is an appropriate way to tax, and I think the burden is on its supporters to show why it beats other options I've already provided.
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Judging from the huge monetary advantage that republicans have over democrats in this regard, they are in fact far more committed to the process than democrats.
Care to explain your reasoning? First, to what "huge monetary advatage" do you refer? I keep getting bombarded with news that, e.g., Clinton's campaign donations far exceed every other candidate's, and that Pelosi's Democrats' Congressional campaign fund exceeds that of the Republicans?
Are you saying that the only reason anyone donates to a political party is to receive favors at the expense of the general public? If so, I, and many others, resent that. Is it not at least as likely that people would donate to prevent some demagogue (and each of the two major parties seems to be enthralled with one this year) from causing damage to our country? If someone proposes something stupid (e.g., a wall on our southern border or protectionist trade policies), should those who know the proposal's stupidity keep silent?
I'm obviously missing something here.
John
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
John, yer only missing a lobotomy. Get one and you'll understand.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
Speaking of balls, I hope no one getz blue balls over this graph.
Thanks to kSolem.
From Broadway to the Milky Way
That’s a lot of territory indeed
And a man’s gonna do what he has to do
When he’s got a hungry mouth to feed
-George Orwell
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
John, I'm not an accountant but is it true that Parterships are taxed on all income in the tax year whether or not the money is distributed as dividends to the partners or kept for reinvestment for future expansion?
I've had a few S Corporations that are effectively taxed like partnerships, but maintain the corporate structure and personal shield for liability.
I would be open to the idea of eliminating the separate corporate income tax if we tax all shareholders pro-rata for their share of the income in the year it is incurred and without consideration for whether or not it was actually distributed as a dividend. A few challenges I would foresee:
1. Different classes of stock with voting rights, liquidation preference, etc... how does this relate to the amount that should be allocated to different stock classes? Could it be as simple as allocating the tax burden in the same way that dividends would be distributed?
2. Taxation would need to be based on more than just dividends... it would need to be on retained earnings allocated for future growth and contingencies and whatever, or there would be a loophole to just hoard all the cash and never pay dividends to avoid taxes. Then stock value would grow based on the cash pile sitting in the corporation and people would trade based on expected stock price growth rather than getting dividends. This works for start-ups but would be bad for large mature companies. It would encourage companies to misrepresent growth in future earnings, to merge with each other to get bigger marketshare and cross into each other's adjacent markets, pushing us toward fewer and bigger monopolies that further challenge our democracy with super-PACS and lobbyists etc.
So John, I say the burden is on you to show why corporations should not be taxed, and how your alternative solution would create a sustainable balance in power between the interests of our citizens and a reasonable business climate that favors risk taking, innovation, and creation of value.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
John, I'm not an accountant but is it true that Parterships are taxed on all income in the tax year whether or not the money is distributed as dividends to the partners or kept for reinvestment for future expansion?
You are essentially correct, Scott, and I think you raise some valid points in that regard. Partnerships and S corproations are, for tax purposes, pass-through organizations. Whatever taxable income partnerships, S corps, and most LLC's recognize they allocate to the individual members, who bear the tax consequences individually. C corporation common stockholders, in contrast, only recognize ordinary income if they receive a dividend, or capital gain or loss if the sell stock.
I'm in the middle of a project at work at the moment, but I agree that your answer calls for a response. I will get to that as soon as I can.
John
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!