It is currently Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:06 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 5500
no, i don't think that has anything to do with what's being discussed here.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 9676
Kodiak wrote:
Y-Town Steel wrote:
Still Lit wrote:
But until the government gets its shit together regarding spending, we need to tax everything, IMO.

Whaaaaaaat?!?!? :shock: :? :cry:


Yep....Another sheeple. What is shocking is that you'd think that Lit would know better. But apparently he doesn't care.


Look. That’s hardly a fair comment. My point is that we should pay for what we spend. My point is not that we should be spending what we are spending.

And I never said you were wrong about what you said about taxes. I said you had not yet shown why my argument is wrong. I may be wrong. I may be a sheeple. But I sure as shit can keep an argument straight. 8-)

_________________
TB wrote:
Breaking news: Tom Brady is also better than Ben Roethlisberger. Jerry Rice is better than Antonio Brown. Your mom is a bigger slut than my mom.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:35 pm
Posts: 7615
https://www.ctj.org/fact-sheet-why-we-need-the-corporate-income-tax/

Discuss.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 5500
Poltargyst wrote:


I get #1,,,i don't have time to read them all. I own an S-Corp. Any "retained" profits at the end of they year are subject to corporate tax rates. That forces me to either...pay out bonuses(taxed), reinvest in the company(taxed) or a couple other options. Otherwise I could sit on that profit and do nothing or save it for a rainy day. That would be nice, but I own a very small business of less than 10 employees. I suppose there are in depth ways to take advantage of loopholes for large corporations so we need the taxes. For the little guys, not so much.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 11331
Poltargyst wrote:



Yeah, that article is garbage that understands nothing about tax or economics. I've already destroyed every argument it makes. There are really no good, nor sentient, points made in that article.

Also, most economists agree that taxes are passed on to the consumer. So, there's that. When I see an article pretending otherwise, then I know it's propaganda or completely ignorant.

The main point of that article is "hey!, if we don't tax this money, it's deferred indefitinetly". Well, that's already largely true whether you tax corporations or not. The fact is a good share of corporations ARE owned by mutual funds and pensions, so if you want true progressive taxation, then you change personal income rates and don't tax corporations.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 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: 11331
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: 3142
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.

_________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Henri Poincaré


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: 11331
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: 5500
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: 11331
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: 5500
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: 11331
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: 803
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: 2222
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: 11331
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  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 2:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 11331
Laying the Wood wrote:
Image


well done, asshole :lol:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:13 pm
Posts: 1682
I hadn't been following this case, but WOW. This woman needs to spend some time in jail
Quote:
Ennis, who testified against the advice of her attorney Stephanie Rickard, said she made up the story because she wanted to ruin Foster's career and sue him for money after he broke up with her on the morning of Feb. 11. She also admitted to falsely accusing a former boyfriend of domestic violence in Louisiana in 2011 after he attempted to break up with her.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/23532216/san-francisco-49ers-reuben-foster-accuser-says-lied-alleged-domestic-violence-incident

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reuben Foster to the Can
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 4:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:12 pm
Posts: 1751
Once again proving the point: bitches be crazy

_________________
Get well soon, Matt Murray


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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