It is currently Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:40 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 10426
jebrick wrote:

I see. This is what Trump did when his Casino went under and he wa sable to take it was a tax break for the next 10 years. Thanks. did not know that.


This sounds like a really dumb and ignorant comment. If you want to make political statements, try not to look like a dumbass hick when doing so.

I'm no fan of Trump, but that's some dumbass hit you posted.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:57 pm
Posts: 3001
Kodiak wrote:
jebrick wrote:

I see. This is what Trump did when his Casino went under and he wa sable to take it was a tax break for the next 10 years. Thanks. did not know that.


This sounds like a really dumb and ignorant comment. If you want to make political statements, try not to look like a dumbass hick when doing so.

I'm no fan of Trump, but that's some dumbass hit you posted.


It is not meant to be a political post but a statement of fact in relation to understanding the question. Since I do not know of any other company that has publicly disclosed that they are a pass-thru, I was merely pointing out an example that others may know. To state that a privately held company used this in their taxes and how in some cases it benefits them is part of a conversation. That the company happens to be run by a controversial figure can't be helped. That the company did nothing wrong in so far as the law because of how their company is structured is part of the conversation. We could also talk about how Apple or 3M is structured and how they move money off shore in a legal way to avoid taxes but that has not been brought up.

_________________
"Golf and sex are about the only things you can enjoy without being good at." - Jimmy Demaret


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 10426
jebrick wrote:
Kodiak wrote:
jebrick wrote:

I see. This is what Trump did when his Casino went under and he wa sable to take it was a tax break for the next 10 years. Thanks. did not know that.


This sounds like a really dumb and ignorant comment. If you want to make political statements, try not to look like a dumbass hick when doing so.

I'm no fan of Trump, but that's some dumbass hit you posted.


It is not meant to be a political post but a statement of fact in relation to understanding the question. Since I do not know of any other company that has publicly disclosed that they are a pass-thru, I was merely pointing out an example that others may know. To state that a privately held company used this in their taxes and how in some cases it benefits them is part of a conversation. That the company happens to be run by a controversial figure can't be helped. That the company did nothing wrong in so far as the law because of how their company is structured is part of the conversation. We could also talk about how Apple or 3M is structured and how they move money off shore in a legal way to avoid taxes but that has not been brought up.


It's entirely unrelated to what Trump did with one of his casinos. It sounded, and appears to be, an ignorant politard comment. I re-read the above twice, and I have no idea what point you're trying to make, and I KNOW you don't, either.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2018 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 5392
But Trump....... Trump derangement syndrome.....not matter the topic or conversation, it triggers a reference to Donald J Trump....

eg. Scientist have recently discovered a new medication for the fight against cancer. "Trump will never let cancer be cured"

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 3:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 10426
R S wrote:
But Trump....... Trump derangement syndrome.....not matter the topic or conversation, it triggers a reference to Donald J Trump....

eg. Scientist have recently discovered a new medication for the fight against cancer. "Trump will never let cancer be cured"


Bingo.

Everyone has that crazy ass right-wing Uncle. But what Trump has exposed is that MOST liberals are just as fucking stupid. Concepts of hippocritical and double-standard are foreign to them (unless talking immigration). Which in some respects probably makes them even dumber.

And Trump IS a jackass idiot. But he's unintentionally exposed that most voters are even dumber.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 5392
Trump is a jackass, but he's not an idiot. If that makes sense.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 6:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 10426
R S wrote:
Trump is a jackass, but he's not an idiot. If that makes sense.


No, it makes sense. I honestly don't know if he's not an idiot, though.

Of course, we could have relative definitions of idiot. Let's just say I think his IQ is below average, and the average person is an idiot.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 7:58 pm
Posts: 724
Kodiak wrote:
R S wrote:
But Trump....... Trump derangement syndrome.....not matter the topic or conversation, it triggers a reference to Donald J Trump....

eg. Scientist have recently discovered a new medication for the fight against cancer. "Trump will never let cancer be cured"


Bingo.

Everyone has that crazy ass right-wing Uncle. But what Trump has exposed is that MOST liberals are just as fucking stupid. Concepts of hippocritical and double-standard are foreign to them (unless talking immigration). Which in some respects probably makes them even dumber.

And Trump IS a jackass idiot. But he's unintentionally exposed that most voters are even dumber.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2079
Still Lit wrote:
Zeke5123 wrote:
You raise I think a good rebuttable, but notice that you are suggesting a benefit basis for taxation. However, the whole progressive tax scheme is based on ability to pay. If you want to move to a benefit test basis, isn’t the reasonable response to try to tax the amount of the benefit?

Reasons are legion why some firms ornaize as corporate entities and others as partnerships, but presumably there is a delta of value between the two and that should be the basis for corporate tax if you believe benefit tax is the right way to tax things. Alternatively, you could tax corporations based on the cost of providing services to corporation eg a toll is an example of this kind of benefit tax

However, the current scheme is untethered to any cost or benefit. Thus, it is clear that it is ability to pay. If ability to pay, then integration appears to be appropriate given that the ability to pay must be the ability to pay at the level of the natural person who owns the corporation.


To the extent I am able to follow, that makes good sense. Not sure how relevant the following response is, but here goes:

Benefits (protections) yes, but also cost of regulations. Artificial persons must be regulated in addition to receiving whatever benefits they are entitled to (set aside figuring out what regulations are overreach for the sake of argument; but we don't want the Cuyahoga catching on fire again for the sake of the public good). Natural persons must be regulated as well, but I would imagine that at least some regulation is unique to artificial persons. E.g., can a natural person be responsible for a blow out at an extraction site in the Gulf and liable for clean up costs?

Regarding benefits, I would imagine at least some of the benefits (protections) companies receive are unique to their artificial status as well. Other benefits are not unique (use of roads, etc). A tax proportionate to the level of benefit received seems totally reasonable.

If some protections and regulations are unique to the artificial status of the company (i.e., it is an artificial person, not natural), then I am hard pressed to agree that the natural person is being double-taxed as Kodiak points out.

"Thus, it is clear that it is ability to pay. If ability to pay, then integration appears to be appropriate given that the ability to pay must be the ability to pay at the level of the natural person who owns the corporation."

Walk me through the necessary connections between the clauses, here.
Conclusion: integration is appropriate.
Premise: the ability to pay must be (why?) the ability to pay at the level of the natural person who own the corporation.

What connects the premise to the conclusion?

Forgive the question, this is just not something I am used to thinking about.


Sorry for taking so long to respond Lit. Real world (if you haven't guessed, I work in tax and thus have been very busy).

There are two arguments. First, corporate stock is an asset. While there is some argument regarding the incidence of corporate tax (i.e., who bears the burden of the tax), I think what is unambiguous is that shareholders bear a meaningful share of the tax; more so where the product produced by the corporation is highly elastic. Accordingly, taxes reduce the value of assets. A reduction in assets reduces the ability-to-pay of shareholders, but there is no reduction in the shareholder's individual taxpayer. Consequently, imagine two persons: A and B. A purchases a bond and B purchases stock. A is taxed only on income from the bond; whereas B is taxed once at the corporate level and then at the shareholder level. However, the marginal tax rate only accounts for income at the level of A or B. Now, things like taxing dividends or capital gain generally at preferential rates are designed to solve this, but it is really inexact.

Second argument would be that we don't know who bears the incidence of corporate tax, and thus cannot determine whether the payer has greater or lesser ability-to-pay. By taxing solely at the shareholder level, you eliminate this concern.

However, what theses arguments all ignore is that cost of administration.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 2:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 10426
Zeke5123 wrote:
However, what theses arguments all ignore is that cost of administration.


EXACTLY!

We tax corporations because it's a significant amount of money spread across a comparatively small number of entities. It just makes enforcement, collection and audit easier, and more affordable.

Theoretically. That also means now there is a lot of money to be saved with deductions, credits, lobbying, "corporate welfare", etc...Excluding the likes of a Zuckerberg or Steve Jobs, a capital gain or dividend is largely free of that noise, along with the incentive to cheat or shelter being reduced.

I think the main reason we keep taxing corporations is that if we didn't, we'd put a lot of accountants out of work (in both the govt AND private sector).

_________________
------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
FORUM RULES --- PRIVACY POLICY




Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group