Born Free
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2011
- Messages
- 9,161
- Reaction score
- 2,142
- Location
- Sonny and Nice
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
You have significantly reduced personal liability.
Tell me why a sole proprietor should have total liability and 1 level of taxation and a corporation had very limited liability and 1 level of taxation.
Not that I think you understand this topic at all.
Companies leave for a variety of reasons and companies move to the US for a variety of reasons. Until you demonstrate you know the difference between effective and statutory, there is frankly no reason to put any value in what you say here.
Do you have anything other than partisan vomit to the hide the fact you literally don't understand what I'm talking about?
No, I don't like a VAT. It taxes every step of production, since it is a "value added" tax. We should just tax the end result value.
Almost all of them in practice provide a credit for previous VAT paid. I could go into the details, available here, but the effect of a credit invoice VAT is to just tax the last sale to the final consumer. The VAT paid during production is also rebated at the point of export, so exports don't have any imbedded VAT in the price.
And our current sales tax (RST) taxes all kinds of business inputs. By some estimates, businesses pay about 40% of all RST, and when those products are exported, there is no way to rebate the embedded RST in the cost of that good so it makes U.S. produced goods more expensive overseas than they'd be with a VAT.
There's more, but if you want to tax final consumption only, a VAT works better in practice.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-insane-u-s--corporate-tax-system-145353359.html
"Merck, the second largest pharmaceutical company in the U.S., actually had a negative effective tax rate of 7.5% during the second quarter, which means it got a tax credit. Eight of the 20 companies were in real estate or real estate-related businesses."
Looks like the "job creator's" are overtaxed.
I have no problem with this, our corporate tax rate is already too high. On top of that, a corporation that pays taxes is being double taxed because the shareholders get taxed again on their income.http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-insane-u-s--corporate-tax-system-145353359.html
"Merck, the second largest pharmaceutical company in the U.S., actually had a negative effective tax rate of 7.5% during the second quarter, which means it got a tax credit. Eight of the 20 companies were in real estate or real estate-related businesses."
Looks like the "job creator's" are overtaxed.
I have no problem with this, our corporate tax rate is already too high. On top of that, a corporation that pays taxes is being double taxed because the shareholders get taxed again on their income.
So what, these 20 only get taxed once, instead of twice? Big deal.
No, they're getting taxes zero times.
Keep in mind, they must have a net income to pay income tax.
So, as most of us want to simplify the tax code, you want to keep it complex?
No Thanks.
I looked at the first company listed. 2014 Q 2, Merck already paid $947 million in taxes. They expect to pay between $2.5 to 2.8 billion for 2014. I didn't bother checking the other nine. Maybe you should.
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MjQ0NDgyfENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1
Income tax (benefit) expense (947) (409)
And where is the fairness in that?
Dividends are income so are subject to income tax. What is unfair about that?
Corporate profits are taxed under a separate corporate tax not income tax.
Dividends are income so are subject to income tax. What is unfair about that?
Corporate profits are taxed under a separate corporate tax not income tax.
And as the OP demonstrates, one can have net income and still pay zero income tax
Yes, I guess we should say that we are talking about net taxable income, if that is an accounting term, otherwise it doesn't add up that they have net income but don't pay income tax.
It's a tax term, and companies can and do report $billions in GAAP income and PAY no U.S. income taxes. They might record an income tax expense, but be able to defer that expense for years, perhaps indefinitely. Many companies doing business internationally will have to record an income tax expense based on worldwide profits, but can avoid PAYING U.S. income taxes by leaving the money offshore, and only paying taxes when it's repatriated into the U.S. It's why it's such a big deal in recent months for a repatriation holiday, so U.S. companies can bring cash sitting in the Caymans etc. back to the U.S. tax free or at a substantially reduced rate.
Well, you are taxing with the corporate income tax, then, when it is distributed to the shareholders as dividends, it is taxed again as income.
A VAT is no more complex than the RST in practice.
Besides, simplicity isn't THE goal. Would you rather have an arguably slightly simpler RST under which businesses pay 40% of the RST and cause U.S. produced goods to be less competitive internationally, or have slightly more complex (in theory) VAT that allows U.S. producers to export products free of imbedded consumption taxes? I'd rather have one that works better and is better for U.S. producers.
And if you want to simplify the code, then you need to get rid of special tax exemptions like the exclusion for employer provided health insurance, mortgage interest deductions, deductions for property taxes and state income taxes paid, deductions for charity, etc. It would raise your taxes if you take those deductions but it would be simpler!
Corporate taxes are on profits not income. That is a totally different animal from individual income tax. You pay sales tax with income that was already taxed too. So that is also double taxation by your logic.
I don't want business to pay any taxes. It is harmful to our global competitiveness.
I guess you like all the made in China products we have today. Not I.
Y I don't see much of a distinction between profit and taxable income here.
Yes, we tax them for income at home and abroad, so they want to keep it off shore. Many other countries don't do that, because they are already taxed on that money by the country where they are operating.
But it is our tax laws that encourage companies to seek HQ's overseas, to keep money overseas, and discourage other companies from coming here. The tone of the posts are "see what these evil corporations are doing", when it is the government that makes the laws and tells them do this, and we'll tax you, but do that, and we won't. They are only playing by the rules.
I don't want business to pay any taxes. It is harmful to our global competitiveness. I guess you like all the made in China products we have today. Not I.
Well, we can't compete with tax rates of ZERO like many of these tax havens offer. It's absurd - we allow for a "HQ" to be a mail drop in a tiny building with 1,000 other "corporate headquarters." I don't mind competing with countries that offer lower rates for actual businesses, but you can't defend the BS system we have now, where the HQ can be anywhere on the planet that one can send some mail. IMO, if someone wants to put a HQ in Bermuda, move the CEO and all the staff, support, etc. to Bermuda. Otherwise, your HQ is where the OPERATIONS for the HQ are located not where you've moved the piece of paper.
Here's the problem as I see it. Why should corps waste so much on lobbying at the feet of government? We, the consumer, end up paying for all that. These career politicians only care about keeping their seats and amassing as much power as possible. They like this system, they want the private sector to throw money at them and come begging for favors. They have no incentive to change that, since they gaet re-elected 85% of the time. We need term limits so that they don't have that incentive anymore. It's just sickening how much money is sucked up by our government. Completely out of control. Way off from what was intended.And they ARE only playing by the "rules" but the rules are corrupt, and if corporations pay $1 billion in lobbying etc. to get those rules, then we need to address the problem there, and not pretend that legislators getting paid (bribed) to pass favorable rules won't pass favorable rules. It's why I've also come to believe step one in any kind of reform is to reform campaign financing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?