Not So Fast. The Rich Pay Their Fair Share

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I wanted to put this out there for all those that feel the rich don’t pay their share. Flacco will likely pay, “a combined marginal income tax rate of 51.98 percent.”

I would venture a guess as to say most of the “rich” are folks like this. They aren’t living off capital gains, although Flacco will one day. They are instead living off wages that are heavily taxed.

The government is going to take more than half of what he is contracted to make. Not to mention all of the other taxes he will pay, such as sales, gas, etc…

How can you defend this?[/quote]

Capitol gains are taxed more heavily that regular income. They are just paid through corporate taxation. To be fair, there shouldn’t be any tax on personal capitol gains.[/quote]

That is not quite true. Dividends are. Capital gains are not necessarily. Assets can increase in value without any corporate taxation.

To be really “fair” capital gains and dividends should be taxed as normal income and the government should issue imputation credits against corporate tax paid.[/quote]

Corporations aren’t a person and shouldn’t be taxed at all. In fact earning (productivity) shouldn’t be fined (taxed) at all.[/quote]

Corporations in their current implementation only exist because society has created them and recognizes them. So why shouldn’t society be able to tax them?

If anything corporate taxes should be the last form of tax to go.

22

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I wanted to put this out there for all those that feel the rich don’t pay their share. Flacco will likely pay, “a combined marginal income tax rate of 51.98 percent.”

I would venture a guess as to say most of the “rich” are folks like this. They aren’t living off capital gains, although Flacco will one day. They are instead living off wages that are heavily taxed.

The government is going to take more than half of what he is contracted to make. Not to mention all of the other taxes he will pay, such as sales, gas, etc…

How can you defend this?[/quote]

Capitol gains are taxed more heavily that regular income. They are just paid through corporate taxation. To be fair, there shouldn’t be any tax on personal capitol gains.[/quote]

That is not quite true. Dividends are. Capital gains are not necessarily. Assets can increase in value without any corporate taxation.

To be really “fair” capital gains and dividends should be taxed as normal income and the government should issue imputation credits against corporate tax paid.[/quote]

Corporations aren’t a person and shouldn’t be taxed at all. In fact earning (productivity) shouldn’t be fined (taxed) at all.[/quote]

Corporations in their current implementation only exist because society has created them and recognizes them. So why shouldn’t society be able to tax them?

If anything corporate taxes should be the last form of tax to go.[/quote]

And my money is actually owned by my imaginary friend Harvey the Rabbit. If I make some bad business decision, he’s the one liable. Oh, and since it’s not my money, you can’t tax me to get it, you better make up laws so you can tax imaginary people if you want to get your hands on that money.

Now, replace “Harvey the rabbit” with “corporation”.

23

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The biggest reason? It’s redundant.[/quote]

It is only redundant because we tax corporations at a lower rate than individuals.

24

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The biggest reason? It’s redundant.[/quote]

It is only redundant because we tax corporations at a lower rate than individuals.[/quote]

No, because we tax the same money 5 different times.

25

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I disagree. The largest stockholder can’t take corporate assets. Bill Gates can’t walk into a Microsoft store and take what he wants.
[/quote]

My landlord can’t walk in and do what he wants to the house I live in. But it’s still his house and he still pays the taxes on it.

26

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I wanted to put this out there for all those that feel the rich don’t pay their share. Flacco will likely pay, “a combined marginal income tax rate of 51.98 percent.”

I would venture a guess as to say most of the “rich” are folks like this. They aren’t living off capital gains, although Flacco will one day. They are instead living off wages that are heavily taxed.

The government is going to take more than half of what he is contracted to make. Not to mention all of the other taxes he will pay, such as sales, gas, etc…

How can you defend this?[/quote]

Capitol gains are taxed more heavily that regular income. They are just paid through corporate taxation. To be fair, there shouldn’t be any tax on personal capitol gains.[/quote]

That is not quite true. Dividends are. Capital gains are not necessarily. Assets can increase in value without any corporate taxation.

To be really “fair” capital gains and dividends should be taxed as normal income and the government should issue imputation credits against corporate tax paid.[/quote]

Corporations aren’t a person and shouldn’t be taxed at all. In fact earning (productivity) shouldn’t be fined (taxed) at all.[/quote]

Corporations in their current implementation only exist because society has created them and recognizes them. So why shouldn’t society be able to tax them?

If anything corporate taxes should be the last form of tax to go.[/quote]

And my money is actually owned by my imaginary friend Harvey the Rabbit. If I make some bad business decision, he’s the one liable. Oh, and since it’s not my money, you can’t tax me to get it, you better make up laws so you can tax imaginary people if you want to get your hands on that money.

Now, replace “Harvey the rabbit” with “corporation”.[/quote]

Well that is basically what we do. We recognize Harvey the Rabbit as a separate entity with the force of the law behind him.

Would you like to get rid of limited liability?

27

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The biggest reason? It’s redundant.[/quote]

It is only redundant because we tax corporations at a lower rate than individuals.[/quote]

No, because we tax the same money 5 different times.[/quote]

And how does that make it redundant?

28

[quote]phaethon wrote:

Well that is basically what we do. We recognize Harvey the Rabbit as a separate entity with the force of the law behind him.

Would you like to get rid of limited liability?[/quote]

Yes, it’s absurd. I think more business would be responsible and successful 1 without taxes and 2 with personal liability for your own decisions.

29

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

DD,

I disagree. The largest stockholder can’t take corporate assets. Bill Gates can’t walk into a Microsoft store and take what he wants. It doesn’t work that way. As a matter of fact he’d go to jail for theft if he did. On some philosophical level I get what you are saying, but that’s not reality.

Your homeless example is extreme. What could we possibly take from them in the form of taxes? Apple made billions in profits last year, a homeless person might eat today. There is a big difference. Apple also uses a ton of resources. Much more than a homeless person.

Corporate earnings do exist and they profit should be taxed. They use resources that otherwise could be used for other things.

What is your argument for taxing an individual and not a corporation?
[/quote]

I agree, but it’s that way as a result of law and yes, it does seem impossible to undo what the law has done at this point.

So, you are a from according to ability, to according to need kind of guy…

The biggest reason? It’s redundant.[/quote]

How could you structure corporations otherwise?

30

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The biggest reason? It’s redundant.[/quote]

It is only redundant because we tax corporations at a lower rate than individuals.[/quote]

No, because we tax the same money 5 different times.[/quote]

How so?

31

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

DD,

I disagree. The largest stockholder can’t take corporate assets. Bill Gates can’t walk into a Microsoft store and take what he wants. It doesn’t work that way. As a matter of fact he’d go to jail for theft if he did. On some philosophical level I get what you are saying, but that’s not reality.

Your homeless example is extreme. What could we possibly take from them in the form of taxes? Apple made billions in profits last year, a homeless person might eat today. There is a big difference. Apple also uses a ton of resources. Much more than a homeless person.

Corporate earnings do exist and they profit should be taxed. They use resources that otherwise could be used for other things.

What is your argument for taxing an individual and not a corporation?
[/quote]

I agree, but it’s that way as a result of law and yes, it does seem impossible to undo what the law has done at this point.

So, you are a from according to ability, to according to need kind of guy…

The biggest reason? It’s redundant.[/quote]

How could you structure corporations otherwise? [/quote]

Like they did before corporations were granted the rights of a person?

32

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I disagree. The largest stockholder can’t take corporate assets. Bill Gates can’t walk into a Microsoft store and take what he wants.
[/quote]

My landlord can’t walk in and do what he wants to the house I live in. But it’s still his house and he still pays the taxes on it.[/quote]

Okay, what does that have to do with what you are saying?

33

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The biggest reason? It’s redundant.[/quote]

It is only redundant because we tax corporations at a lower rate than individuals.[/quote]

No, because we tax the same money 5 different times.[/quote]

How so? [/quote]

Tax it when the “corp” earns it, tax the “corp” with they pay it to you, tax you for getting it, tax you for spending it…

34

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

Well that is basically what we do. We recognize Harvey the Rabbit as a separate entity with the force of the law behind him.

Would you like to get rid of limited liability?[/quote]

Yes, it’s absurd. I think more business would be responsible and successful 1 without taxes and 2 with personal liability for your own decisions.[/quote]

I pretty much agree. However, if you remove taxes from companies but keep limited liability you are making things doubly unfair.

35

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I disagree. The largest stockholder can’t take corporate assets. Bill Gates can’t walk into a Microsoft store and take what he wants.
[/quote]

My landlord can’t walk in and do what he wants to the house I live in. But it’s still his house and he still pays the taxes on it.[/quote]

Okay, what does that have to do with what you are saying?[/quote]

It means ownership and taxation aren’t affected by voluntary arrangements. I could take my earnings and lock them in a safe that I can’t open, doesn’t mean I don’t owe the tax on them. Same with buying a part of a company.

36

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

Well that is basically what we do. We recognize Harvey the Rabbit as a separate entity with the force of the law behind him.

Would you like to get rid of limited liability?[/quote]

Yes, it’s absurd. I think more business would be responsible and successful 1 without taxes and 2 with personal liability for your own decisions.[/quote]

I doubt it. Investment would likely plummet. Would you buy stock in Apple if you would be liable for copy right infringment for example? How about BP, imagine being liable for the Gulf oil spill even though you own 10 shares.

You can argue they’d be more successful without taxes, but again who pays for the roads Corps use, the natural resources they consume, etc…?

37

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
So is this Flacco character going to end up on food stamps or something? On a more serious note: why should anyone who posts here care what he pays in taxes? None of us are making anything close to what he makes and probably never will. Worry about your own taxes and let Flacco worry about his.

I wonder if the reason why people who are not wealthy, like those who post here (yes, I know some of you would refer to yourselves as rich but relative to who?), is because it makes them feel that they too are part of that club. It’s as though by defending the rights of the rich they will become rich.

Do you think Flacco worries about the NFL downsizing or shipping his job overseas? Is he worried about health insurance or his pension? And why is it this forum is so anti-union yet multimillionaire athletes feel the need to have the protection that a union offers them? Flacco is just like Obama: a wealthy socialist. [/quote]

You should care because it’s an unjustified amount of taxes for anyone to pay. You should care because eventually the middle class will pay these absurd taxes.

I’m not even going to address the remainder of your post. It is so full of assumptions and BS it’s a waste of time. [/quote]
And in the meantime Flacco will be worried about the issues facing the middle class so it evens out, right?

I just read an article about some singer called Lady Gaga who spent over 50K on some koi imported from Japan. What, she couldn’t buy American? We have fish here too. But I should worry about how much she pays in taxes. I bet she voted for Obama as well so she doesn’t seem to be too worried about things.

You use words like fair and justice but what about what’s fair for those with less money than Flacco? What does fair even mean? Is Flacco standing up and saying that the people who sell beer and hotdogs in the stadium should make more money? But those same people should be worried about how much Flacco pays in taxes?

38

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The biggest reason? It’s redundant.[/quote]

It is only redundant because we tax corporations at a lower rate than individuals.[/quote]

No, because we tax the same money 5 different times.[/quote]

How so? [/quote]

Tax it when the “corp” earns it, tax the “corp” with they pay it to you, tax you for getting it, tax you for spending it…[/quote]

Salary is an expense and corproation are only taxed on profits. Salary is only taxed at the individual level.

I agree double taxation occurs at an indvidual level. When we earn it and then when we spend it, but that is mostly at the state level as far as I know.

39

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

Well that is basically what we do. We recognize Harvey the Rabbit as a separate entity with the force of the law behind him.

Would you like to get rid of limited liability?[/quote]

Yes, it’s absurd. I think more business would be responsible and successful 1 without taxes and 2 with personal liability for your own decisions.[/quote]

I doubt it. Investment would likely plummet. Would you buy stock in Apple if you would be liable for copy right infringment for example? How about BP, imagine being liable for the Gulf oil spill even though you own 10 shares.

You can argue they’d be more successful without taxes, but again who pays for the roads Corps use, the natural resources they consume, etc…?[/quote]

But limited liability also allows the owners of a business to get off the hook when they owe you money. Take money from people for a contracted service, spend it, declare corporate bankruptcy and walk away.

40

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I disagree. The largest stockholder can’t take corporate assets. Bill Gates can’t walk into a Microsoft store and take what he wants.
[/quote]

My landlord can’t walk in and do what he wants to the house I live in. But it’s still his house and he still pays the taxes on it.[/quote]

Okay, what does that have to do with what you are saying?[/quote]

It means ownership and taxation aren’t affected by voluntary arrangements. I could take my earnings and lock them in a safe that I can’t open, doesn’t mean I don’t owe the tax on them. Same with buying a part of a company.[/quote]

You said, "No. Considering a corporation is a piece of paper and a name. There is no such thing as corporate earnings. All earnings are some individual’s money. The government grants them personhood, and that’s just foolish. "

In which I replied Bill Gates can’t take assets from the company. It illegal. I don’t understand how your arragment (you are basically paying for a service) Have to do with Gates “ownership” of Microsoft via shares and his inability to take assets if he chooses to. They are two entirely differnt things.

Also stop paying your rent, I bet your land lord gets some of your stuff.