Are all conservative governments the same?

[sidious618]

So, which tax loopholes would you close? The mortgage, childcare, hire a veteran, educational, invest in infrastructure ones? Or others?

My company has gotten several tax breaks, it has freed up cashflow to hire additional employees. In your opinion, which is better...for my company to pay more taxes or to pay less but provide three more jobs?

I wouldn't consider any of those tax loopholes. Loopholes are when companies are able to avoid paying taxes thanks to technicalities or some extra paperwork. This happens all the time from oil companies to Hollywood.

Your example of your company hiring or being taxed is way too simplistic and does not represent an actual reality in regards to corporations and taxes. If it's true that less taxes meant corporations would create more jobs then we would never have had the unemployment crisis of the past few years considering that corporations are paying less than they have in over a century. The idea that corporations are "job creators" has been disproven many times over. A quick look at the current economic writing in regards to "job creators" should clear that up for you.

 

[Mick]

Check this out.. The Rich can't pay tax because they might be kidnapped so our government is going to let them be exempt from tax...

http://www.theguardian.com/australi...thy-need-tax-reporting-exemptions?CMP=soc_567

See some conservative governments protect the rich... Some of these companies donate huge sums to the LNP in Australia.

This isn't democracy

That is not what the article says.

The proposed change would exempt private companies – such as those controlled by the billionaire mining magnate Gina Rinehart – from disclosures that were due to be published by the Australian Tax Office the first time later this year.

But the ATO would still be required to publish details about companies listed on the stock exchange and multinational corporations operating in Australia.

The proposed exemption would spare about 1,000 of the 2,300 companies that were to be subject to the disclosure obligations, according to the latest government estimates. Previously published estimates suggested the exemption would benefit about 700 out of 1,600 affected companies.

It is exempting them from disclosing, not from paying, their tax information.

 

[abeardall]

So, which tax loopholes would you close? The mortgage, childcare, hire a veteran, educational, invest in infrastructure ones? Or others?

My company has gotten several tax breaks, it has freed up cashflow to hire additional employees. In your opinion, which is better...for my company to pay more taxes or to pay less but provide three more jobs?

I wouldn't consider any of those tax loopholes. Loopholes are when companies are able to avoid paying taxes thanks to technicalities or some extra paperwork. This happens all the time from oil companies to Hollywood.

Your example of your company hiring or being taxed is way too simplistic and does not represent an actual reality in regards to corporations and taxes. If it's true that less taxes meant corporations would create more jobs then we would never have had the unemployment crisis of the past few years considering that corporations are paying less than they have in over a century. The idea that corporations are "job creators" has been disproven many times over. A quick look at the current economic writing in regards to "job creators" should clear that up for you.

What you may consider technicality or extra paperwork is merely compliance with the tax law. The job of an accountant or a tax lawyer is to secure their clients a lower tax burden. Any "loophole" whether you agree or disagree with it comes from the tax code. Whether it is your HR Block guy or Bill Gate's tax attorneys, they are following the law. The feds and states create tax breaks to engineer a certain result. There are tax breaks on hybrid cars, the gas companies see that as an unfair loophole. I get to deduct my mortgage interest, renters see that as an unfair tax loophole. Maryland gives millions in tax breaks to "House of Cards" and "Veep" to film here, yet still charge me taxes for running a company here. It may not be fair, but it is legal. If people do not like it, change the law.

As to the actual reality of a corporation...I actually run one. We employ 26 people with 4 more hires on the way this year. Whether or not you find it too simplistic, in many ways it is. There is only a limited amount of money. Every dollar in taxes means it is not spent on other aspects of the company such as new hires, raises, infrastructure, new equipment, and retirement investing.

I personally pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes that anyone in my company except the other partners. I pay more in actual dollars that anyone else (except the other partners) as well. How am I not doing my fair share?

 

[HIjol]

That's it then...time to announce our candidacy for 2016. We should try to secure the Star Trek fan voting bloc early....

Amazing, but the above-listed beliefs and values are very much the "LiberPubliCrat" I am!!!

I humbly offer my name for consideration for the position of Head Speechwriter and Poet Laureate (ok, so that one is chosen and awarded)

Speechwriter for the campaign? Press secretary after our inevitable victory?

Done, and Done!

 

[sidious618]

I personally pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes that anyone in my company except the other partners. I pay more in actual dollars that anyone else (except the other partners) as well. How am I not doing my fair share?

I can't say as I have no inside information about your company or your income level or how much you pay in taxes. I would say that there's a key difference between a company of 30 people and a nationwide corporation. You may very well be paying too much; I have no idea. Relying on your personal experience is not really a reliable way to create an economic platform for America, though. With rampant inequality in America, the answer is not to make sure the rich keep getting richer.

As for corporations being job creators, this article explains what that's not the case. Maybe yours is and if so that's great. But it would be the exception and not the rule.

As to your other points, the fact that some of that is legal is exactly my point. It needs to end.

My call is for higher taxes on the wealthy. This does not mean I want higher taxes on all people. Yes, someone who makes 30 million dollars a year is going to be taxed more than me. But being taxed more does not automatically mean they're paying their "fair share." They are part of a community and a large part of the community is suffering while they stuff their face.

 

[HIjol]

Check this out.. The Rich can't pay tax because they might be kidnapped so our government is going to let them be exempt from tax...

http://www.theguardian.com/australi...thy-need-tax-reporting-exemptions?CMP=soc_567

See some conservative governments protect the rich... Some of these companies donate huge sums to the LNP in Australia.

This isn't democracy

Always love learning something new. I did not know Privacy Laws in Australia extended to Corporations.




That is not what the article says.

The proposed change would exempt private companies – such as those controlled by the billionaire mining magnate Gina Rinehart – from disclosures that were due to be published by the Australian Tax Office the first time later this year.

But the ATO would still be required to publish details about companies listed on the stock exchange and multinational corporations operating in Australia.

The proposed exemption would spare about 1,000 of the 2,300 companies that were to be subject to the disclosure obligations, according to the latest government estimates. Previously published estimates suggested the exemption would benefit about 700 out of 1,600 affected companies.

It is exempting them from disclosing, not from paying, their tax information.

For what it is worth, and in Full Acknowledgement of my "We Wrote the Book On Tax Shenanigans" American-Ness, I think the Disagree-ers have a good point in Leaders needing to remain above the appearance of hiding things or not being transparent, especially in tax matters. Why keep things secret in the way this article is writing about? Why not make a more inclusive, sweeping law that can be voted on by the assembly, and if corporate or rich people need protecting from kidnapping, include more than the (connected?) UberRich? Just my two cents.

 

[abeardall]

I personally pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes that anyone in my company except the other partners. I pay more in actual dollars that anyone else (except the other partners) as well. How am I not doing my fair share?

I can't say as I have no inside information about your company or your income level or how much you pay in taxes. I would say that there's a key difference between a company of 30 people and a nationwide corporation. You may very well be paying too much; I have no idea. Relying on your personal experience is not really a reliable way to create an economic platform for America, though. With rampant inequality in America, the answer is not to make sure the rich keep getting richer.

As for corporations being job creators, this article explains what that's not the case. Maybe yours is and if so that's great. But it would be the exception and not the rule.

As to your other points, the fact that some of that is legal is exactly my point. It needs to end.

My call is for higher taxes on the wealthy. This does not mean I want higher taxes on all people. Yes, someone who makes 30 million dollars a year is going to be taxed more than me. But being taxed more does not automatically mean they're paying their "fair share." They are part of a community and a large part of the community is suffering while they stuff their face.

While your article does raise some valid issues about multinational corporations, it also states that that only applies to about 20% of corporations overall. Most of the companies are a lot more like mine than like Lockheed or Nike.

Just about everyone that has a job works for a corporation of some size or another (unless it is a family business, your own company, or working for the government). That corporation created that job. "Job creators" is just a catchphrase, but it is certainly the case to say that corporations are employers.

The successful are not the enemy.

 

[sidious618]

While your article does raise some valid issues about multinational corporations, it also states that that only applies to about 20% of corporations overall. Most of the companies are a lot more like mine than like Lockheed or Nike.

I know. That's why I keep saying that I want to raise taxes on the very wealthy, both people and corporations. This seems to be a recurring problem among conservatives. They think liberals are out to take their money. Not at all. We're out to end corruption and money hoarding by the companies discussed in that article. No one wants to come after you and your money.

The successful are not the enemy.

I never said they were. This is a strawman.

 

[T'Girl]

But as you noted, the rich do pay more taxes. Whether it's the one percent, or the ten percent, or the fifty percent, they just never seem to pay enough.

Why should some American citizens be penalized in the fashion you advocate? And the rich are American citizens, if you can point at a any person who has directly cause another to be "poor" then they should be in a court of law, and not looking at having their taxes raised.

If you personally don't like a group of people because they have more than you, that would be your privilege. As long as they obey the tax code, in that area they've done nothing wrong.

")

 

[sidious618]

If you personally don't like a group of people because they have more than you, that would be your privilege. As long as they obey the tax code, in that area they've done nothing wrong.

Yet another strawman argument. I didn't say they were doing anything illegal. I said the tax structure needs to be changed so that they pay more. You're arguing against something I didn't say which is dishonest and shows you either don't have a grasp on the subject or aren't interested in actually discussing it.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

While your article does raise some valid issues about multinational corporations, it also states that that only applies to about 20% of corporations overall. Most of the companies are a lot more like mine than like Lockheed or Nike.

No, the Salon article discussed the corporations that employ about 20% of American workers. It didn't say how many corporations exactly, just that it was talking about the transnationals.

The U.S. Department of Commerce found that from 2000 to 2009, U.S. transnational corporations, which employ about 20 percent of all American workers, cut their domestic employment by 2.9 million even as they boosted their overseas workforce by 2.4 million. The result was an enormous loss of jobs nationally, as well as a net loss globally.

Perhaps the article cited at the Wall Street Journal provides more information, but that's behind a paywall.

 

[{ Emilia }]

If you personally don't like a group of people because they have more than you, that would be your privilege. As long as they obey the tax code, in that area they've done nothing wrong.

Yet another strawman argument. I didn't say they were doing anything illegal. I said the tax structure needs to be changed so that they pay more. You're arguing against something I didn't say which is dishonest and shows you either don't have a grasp on the subject or aren't interested in actually discussing it.

A society only works when there's solidarity and social peace. The rich have more than the poor so it makes sense that they can also contribute more to the society and country that created the circumstances that made them become rich. That's why the rich should pay higher taxes.
Seems like common sense to a EuroCommie like myself.

 

[Guy Gardener]

A grumpy history teacher said to my class once "War is to kill half the poor people and give the other half jobs. Looking at you lot, it feels about time for another really big war."

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Check this out.. The Rich can't pay tax because they might be kidnapped so our government is going to let them be exempt from tax...

http://www.theguardian.com/australi...thy-need-tax-reporting-exemptions?CMP=soc_567

See some conservative governments protect the rich... Some of these companies donate huge sums to the LNP in Australia.

This isn't democracy

That is not what the article says.

The proposed change would exempt private companies – such as those controlled by the billionaire mining magnate Gina Rinehart – from disclosures that were due to be published by the Australian Tax Office the first time later this year.

But the ATO would still be required to publish details about companies listed on the stock exchange and multinational corporations operating in Australia.

The proposed exemption would spare about 1,000 of the 2,300 companies that were to be subject to the disclosure obligations, according to the latest government estimates. Previously published estimates suggested the exemption would benefit about 700 out of 1,600 affected companies.

It is exempting them from disclosing, not from paying, their tax information.

I know. I made a mistake..... I still think it's bad legislation

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

If you personally don't like a group of people because they have more than you, that would be your privilege. As long as they obey the tax code, in that area they've done nothing wrong.

Yet another strawman argument. I didn't say they were doing anything illegal. I said the tax structure needs to be changed so that they pay more. You're arguing against something I didn't say which is dishonest and shows you either don't have a grasp on the subject or aren't interested in actually discussing it.

A society only works when there's solidarity and social peace. The rich have more than the poor so it makes sense that they can also contribute more to the society and country that created the circumstances that made them become rich. That's why the rich should pay higher taxes.
Seems like common sense to a EuroCommie like myself.

I agree.

But the rich have accountants and sneaky people to find loopholes to avoid paying tax.. How do you fix that?

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

For what it is worth, and in Full Acknowledgement of my "We Wrote the Book On Tax Shenanigans" American-Ness, I think the Disagree-ers have a good point in Leaders needing to remain above the appearance of hiding things or not being transparent, especially in tax matters. Why keep things secret in the way this article is writing about? Why not make a more inclusive, sweeping law that can be voted on by the assembly, and if corporate or rich people need protecting from kidnapping, include more than the (connected?) UberRich? Just my two cents.

Because Australia is being run by the rich for the rich. Trickle down economics they think is how to fix things....

Those same companies and people have been around for decades so why the bullshit kidnapping excuse now?

What changed?

This is just bullshit legislation.. It's not democratic either is it?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

If you personally don't like a group of people because they have more than you, that would be your privilege. As long as they obey the tax code, in that area they've done nothing wrong.

Yet another strawman argument. I didn't say they were doing anything illegal. I said the tax structure needs to be changed so that they pay more. You're arguing against something I didn't say which is dishonest and shows you either don't have a grasp on the subject or aren't interested in actually discussing it.

A society only works when there's solidarity and social peace. The rich have more than the poor so it makes sense that they can also contribute more to the society and country that created the circumstances that made them become rich. That's why the rich should pay higher taxes.
Seems like common sense to a EuroCommie like myself.

My thinking is that I go a step further. Not only can the rich afford to pay more, but also the rich are indebted more. I believe that that is the natural implication of the part in what you said that I've boldfaced.

Of course, we are talking about income tax rates, and justifying a progressive tax system, which impacts the rich less harshly than the poor (as explained in Locutus's first paragraph below). This unfortunately needs to be explicitly articulated, since, e.g. and as already exhibited in-thread, flat tax proponents (and, unfortunately not irrelevantly, people who are effectively regressive tax proponents; see Locutus's second paragraph below) like to point out that the rich would (or, respectively, do) "pay higher taxes" than the poor under a flat tax (or, respectively, effectively regressive tax systems, such as the one we have now in the US).

^^^....If you can't answer the question of what a fair share is then you can't really make any claims of the rich not paying it.

No, it's an acknowledgement that a progressive tax rate based on income level, assets, family status, business and other deductions can't be expressed by a simple percentage, and that a flat tax of that nature is inherently "unfair" to lower income people. Taking a poor person's 20% of income and a rich person's 20% do not affect them the same way.

But in addition to having very favorable tax rates today as opposed to the past (during times of great wealth and progress in the country) a lot of wealthy people use offshore tax shelters, return on investments instead of a straight salary, questionable deductions, and other tricks of the trade to pay tax rates on par with and occasionally even lower than some middle and low income people.

 

[HIjol]

If you personally don't like a group of people because they have more than you, that would be your privilege. As long as they obey the tax code, in that area they've done nothing wrong.

Yet another strawman argument. I didn't say they were doing anything illegal. I said the tax structure needs to be changed so that they pay more. You're arguing against something I didn't say which is dishonest and shows you either don't have a grasp on the subject or aren't interested in actually discussing it.

Hey, sidious,

I read with interest the thoughts in this Thread about a Flat Tax. I have often thought of it as a, although not perfect, better deal then we have now. I did some heavy research, and yes I did read all there was to read at both places I cite below. I set out to see if there was data on whether we as a country would lose tax revenue if we went to a flat tax.

There is no way to really know about tax revenue figures (like the census!) and at best we have "good" estimates, but the Professor below does a pretty good job of showing that we would not lose tax revenue with a flat tax.

Here is his plan:

"The Flat Tax and How to Fix It"

http://www.westga.edu/~bquest/2002/flattax.htm
Ben Branch branchb@som.umass.edu is a Professor of Finance at the University of Massachusetts.


Here is a very interesting link, giving data on tax revenue collection. It is fairly detailed:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid



I would be interested in your thoughts, or anyone else's!

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Snip

")

Judging by M'Sharak's admonition from the Trek-XI+ forum below, mods have told you multiple times to stop including the smiley at the end of every one of your posts, because it comes off as passive-aggressive. I'm pretty sure typing in a smiley while you're in other forums instead violates the spirit of that mod request as well, and somehow manages to come off as even more passive-aggressive than before.

P.S.: If I'm not mistaken, you've also been asked more than once to refrain from using the at the end of each and every post, so you really ought to stop using it.

 

[trekkiedane]

A grumpy history teacher said to my class once "War is to kill half the poor people and give the other half jobs. Looking at you lot, it feels about time for another really big war."

And a revolution is when the middle and lower classes team up to rid themselves of excess fat, usually in the shape of the ruling and upper classes.


If there were a lot less wars and a lot more revolutions this world would be a happier place.


(Oh, and not having a big divide between rich and poor is one of the things that make a happy population... if noone else, trust a Dane on this!)