Tax System Seen as Unfair, in Need of Overhaul

[OpportunityCost]

from Opportunity Cost


You miss the point in your personal crusade to attack me and score some sort of points for your ideology.

A previous poster claimed that corporate taxes were bad because it diminished profits for share holders. I informed them that it was simply the cost of doing businessnd provied many more examples of the costs of doing business which also theoretically diminish corporate profits as the money is paid out.

For you to argue about the merits of each one is irrelevant. For you to attempt to derail the discussion by introducing a debate about the merits and virtues of regulation is irrelevant and a red herring. In the ned, they are still costs of doing business in America and that was my point which nobody has taken issue with.

You attack my business knowledge. I did not get my knowledge of business from any Wharton school program. While I taught for over three decades, I ran two successful businesses and did quite well with them. I know what it means to pay wages, pay taxes and all the rest. I know what business costs are. I also know how to make a profit and did so.

I do not remember making any personal statements about you. I do not remember doing as you are doing - and instead of using my correct user name - using some invention of your own to ridicule me in a sad attempt to cover your own lack of coherent discourse.

There is an old expression that when you point the finger of blame at others, you still have three more pointing back at yourself. You may want to think about that.

One, if you think someone disagreeing with you is a "personal crusade" go elsewhere, this is a debate forum I can disagree with you as stridently as I care to. If you think you are being attacked personally I strongly suggest you go to the triangle at the bottom and click it. I have attacked your ideas. Not you.

Btw, "Boo", as in Boo Radley, because you two post so similarly and its early AM, I confused one poster with another. Happens, get over it.

Now Im going to go over some basic accounting 101 and business 101 with you because you dont seem to have a grasp on how government regulation and taxes are different from wages, maintenance etc. Wages, maintenance, development are all investments---they have payoffs and they result in job growth. Regulation does not. Some forms of wages can even me listed as cost of goods sold when they are tied to incentive programs. Maintenance alleviates amortization costs and allows use of machinery and capital after its been paid off, shrinking costs. Development is a direct cost used to develop new products and avenues of revenue. I notice you didnt include: marketing, subcontracting, transportation costs, etc etc. You see government as just another cost, I see the other costs as investment because, well, they are. Thats the difference.

Government shaves profits right off the top and do NOT help to create profit except in the barest sense by creating infratructure in roads, sewers, telephone etc. My concern is less with taxes at this point than it is with regulatory burden because a gigantic percentage of our regulatory burden is government created and sponosored to help the big guy and shut down the small business. That has to stop, small business is creating (may be wrong here, read it and cant remember source) upwards of 75% of all jobs.

Combine regulation and taxes and you are costing businesses too much. Thats is direct to my post and is not a red herring, its central to the argument.

 

[haymarket]

You miss the point-the corporations are owned by the stockholders. you are not being rational on this because you want the government to be able to take as much money as possible.

the payment of dividends is not a consumption transaction. If I am Paid a million a year for my job, I pay taxes on that. If I pay you to say cut my lawn, the money I give you in exchange is also taxed so you might claim that the same pile of money is being taxed twice. Yet there are two transactions between two completely separate entities involving consumption (ie payment for services)

as apdst correctly notes there is no labor or services involved in the second transaction

I suppose you can justify why the government should ultimately get 35% of a sum of money twice meaning the government gets far more than half of what the corporation earned

I cannot but then again I don't see the government as anything more than a necessary evil

It appears we are talking at cross purposes about two different things.

My position, which I have outlined in detail, is a simple one that the law of the land supports. A corporation is one legal entity and a human share holder is a completely different animal altogether. Both have their own responsibilities and obligatins and are separate from each other. That is the law and it cannot be disputed or found in error.

As such, a corporation pays taxes upon its profits and that is one thing.
Then a shareholder pays taxes upon its income and that is a different thing.

Turtle - just as you suspect what I really want in all this, allow me to be up front and tell you what I think you want in all this. You want from this want you want from every other tax scheme you have supported on this site - a tax cut for yourself. So you are willing to embrace this argument of double taxation becuase (just like the neologism of the DEATH TAX) it sounds good.

"DOUBLE TAXATION!!!!! My Heavens to Betsy. How indeed is such an injustice possible?"

And just like the countless exchanges you and I made on the issue of the death tax, you still hold to its usage and believe it is an accurate title and I still hold to the idea that it is false on its name and is a mere propaganda tactic.

I suspect that is what we have here Turtle. You have embraced this meme of "double taxation" because it is a right wing meme in the furtherance of a policy question. For one reason or another, you side has made a determination that the words "double taxation" will have some greater political impact than merely discussing the issue of corporte taxes upon their merits.

And I suspect if you and I exchange 100 posts about this topic we wil still be right back to where we started.

 

[haymarket]

from Opportunity Cost

One, if you think someone disagreeing with you is a "personal crusade" go elsewhere, this is a debate forum I can disagree with you as stridently as I care to. If you think you are being attacked personally I strongly suggest you go to the triangle at the bottom and click it. I have attacked your ideas. Not you.

It is what you have made it into. It is obvious from your posts that this is some personal issue with you and you need to attack me personally for it.

Btw, "Boo", as in Boo Radley, because you two post so similarly and its early AM, I confused one poster with another. Happens, get over it.

Every poster here posts under their screen name. I have one. Use it and use no other.

As your Business 101 mini-course, I am glad I did not contract for the lesson since I was indeed worth what I paid for it. I ran my own business - two of them. I never went to business school but I knew one key thing: how much I had to pay to produce a product and how much I made from that product. At the end of the day, or month or year, there were only three things of importance:
1- how much I spent
2- how much I took in
3- how much my profit or loss was

And year after year I turned a profit and did not need a Business 101 textbook to tell me how to do it or how to differentiate between what I was spending in different areas. Money went out and money came in and I ended up with more in my pocket at the end of the year that I started with after all the bills and obligations were paid.

And beyond that, all your other stuiff is just irrelevant fluff that means nothing to the issue of double taxation.

If you desire to derail this and jump to the issue of regulation, start a thread on that topic or find one. The bait you are offering is not taken in this particular pond.

 

[OpportunityCost]

It is what you have made it into. It is obvious from your posts that this is some personal issue with you and you need to attack me personally for it.

Someone has an overinflated sense of martyrdom, if you have a problem with any of my posts, you know what to do--report them, stop whining about them.

Every poster here posts under their screen name. I have one. Use it and use no other.

OMFG in heaven, I made a mistake and confused you with Boo Radley at 6am ish, call the forum police. Not my fault you two have ideaologies that are so much alike that its easy for anyone else to make the same mistake. Sorry. Move on, it wasnt intentional and it wasnt an insult.

1- how much I spent
2- how much I took in
3- how much my profit or loss was

How much you spent, would regulatory compliance fall into that category? Kinda like a tax...hmmm...

If you desire to derail this and jump to the issue of regulation, start a thread on that topic or find one. The bait you are offering is not taken in this particular pond.

I didnt bring up regulation.... checking....you did.

Let the begin

 

[haymarket]

Oh the drama of it all!!!!!!!

You were the one who wanted to debate the virtues of regulation. I simply correctly identified it as a business cost...... along with others.

and again, that has nothing to do with the so called "double taxation" that was bein discussed in the first place.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Oh the drama of it all!!!!!!!

You were the one who wanted to debate the virtues of regulation. I simply correctly identified it as a business cost...... along with others.

and again, that has nothing to do with the so called "double taxation" that was bein discussed in the first place.

Post #901 Haymarket. YOU brought it up. My first post in this portion of the thread is post 903, in response to you.

Regulation is pretty much another form of taxation. Its highly relevant to this thread.

 

[haymarket]

There was no mention of the words REGULATION or DEREGULATION in myu post 901. I merely asked another poster to present his vauge allegations and provide them with substance.

Like I said, you want to discuss regulation pro and con... go for it.... start your own thread and respect this one for what it is.

Or not - that is your call.

 

[OpportunityCost]

By all means, do present your data showing Democratic policies killing jobs. Lets see proof of your partisan claims.

Post 901. Pretty wide open on what direction the thread will take with that question. The previous few posts were you and another poster talking about policy and regulation. Soooo, regulation and policy seems to be ok when you want to talk about it, but not when you dont?

Cool, you applying for the passive/agressive mod spot?
Again, you have a problem with my posts report them or refute them but stop whining about them.

 

[haymarket]

Post 901. Pretty wide open on what direction the thread will take with that question. The previous few posts were you and another poster talking about policy and regulation. Soooo, regulation and policy seems to be ok when you want to talk about it, but not when you dont?

Cool, you applying for the passive/agressive mod spot?
Again, you have a problem with my posts report them or refute them but stop whining about them.

When I want your advice, you will be the first to know. Until then, I am doing quite nicely on my own thank you.

 

[apdst]

Keep reminding yourself of that the next time you drive down a road or highway.
Remind yourself of that when you need the police or fire department for the safety of you or your family.
Remind yourself of that when an educated person waits on you in a local store or business.

And a thousand other times just like those.

Keep reminding yourself where the money came from. It came from people making a profit.

 

[haymarket]

Keep reminding yourself where the money came from. It came from people making a profit.

Lots of people never make a profit on anything since they do not engage in business for profit for themselves. They still pay taxes and they still contribute to our society in building those roads and highways, paying the salaries of teachers, police and fire fighters, building schools and post offices and other government buildings, and countless other services of government.