It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Raising Taxes on Corporations that Pay Their CEOs Royally and Treat Their Workers Like Serfs

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: macman

He got back exactly what income tax he paid into from his check. I did his taxes for him. Oh, you must be thinking of the EIC. He does not qualify because he does not make enough money, and is single.


If he were a full time student and your dependent, you would still have been able to claim him on your taxes. You would also be able to claim the American Opportunity Tax Credit for his schooling most probably, giving you a Tax credit of a maximum credit of $2,500. You will get this credit for the first 4 years of his College, maximum of $10,000 (2,500x4).




posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

That is because they never enforced, we don't pay tariff on our exports, because agreements with the FTA and other countries, why the American companies that bring their goods for sell in the US after been manufactured in foreign countries can not pay higher taxes, after all they have outsourced Job that could have benefited the working class in the nation to begin with for cheaper labor.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

Thanks for that, will write that down for future reference. I do not claim him as my dependent. He has just one more year for his degree. He works full time, school full time, and his own apartment. If pride is a sin I got it. He is the first member of my family to get a college degree, ever. After he graduates, I will not do his taxes anymore.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Congrats on your Son soon graduating.

Remember, you or your son can amend your taxes back three years to get a refund or credit you initially missed. Based on what you have said it sounds as if you son is living on his own. He would probably be the one to claim it if he provided more than half of his own financial support, ie living expenses, ect. Otherwise you would claim him and the American Opportunity Credit. You could easily recoup the whole $10,000 of credits by amending your tax returns. You are well within your rights to legally do so. PM message me if you have questions about it.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

Now that I will definitely check out. Thank you so much.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

NP. If you have questions just message me.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Cabin

lol they would just move offshore. In the end everyone loses. U have to make corporate taxes comparable to the rest of the world. Otherwise nothing will ever get fixed.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Hello. I'm new to this forum, though I've been reading through for years. Normally, I'd be content just reading on, but some of the responses on here certainly stirred me up! The depravity of our big corps is deplorable and for want of a better term, disparaging.



Crazyewok, I agree on a clean slate. It seems to be the best way to get any lasting , efficient effects for us here in America. Unfortunately, with the government showing us to be completely corrupt and for all intents and purposes, nearly useless, it would be like building on rotten, crumbling foundation. Any changes we may instigate will take a very long time to come to fruition. It would be something worth fighting for, of course.



Wantsome, the idea proposed on the first page would be great-- but with the big corps the way they are NOW, we can count on their greed to make it more difficult on the consumer. Though, technically speaking, if every corp were to made to follow this procedure, everyone would be able to afford their ridiculous prices. Of course, barring any future lobbying to make sure there isn't any cap regarding how much a business can charge their consumers for ridiculous things.



Macman, Not everyone has the choice to work anywhere they want on a whim. Most of the time it simply comes down to being hired. If getting hired were that easy, with my employment history, even without a degree, I should have businesses clamouring to hire me! And I did, before 2009. Unfortunately that is not the case. I've mainly been turned down because $10/hr was simply too much to ask for. They want part-timers, people who probably still live at home with their parents so that their need for more hours and more money is greatly reduced. They want degree-level skill for entry-level wages and time. With those prospects, living on one's own is simply out of the question. Having had a large portion of my possessions stolen from me and then have had someone skip out on rent, I've been forced to move in with a friend. When she moved out after having a kid and needing the space, she moved back in with her mother. That left me, motherless, and family in another state, to find another roommate. We'd been living in the same apartment for five years, but rent is increasing faster than we were getting raises. That resulted in our electricity being turned off and us being told that lack of money was not a good enough reason to ask for money and that we should stop living outside our means. So that lead me to work three jobs last year. Great, right? Work for my keep! You know what it did? It put me in a higher tax bracket and I OWED the govt for making too much money! But I didn't make ENOUGH money to pay the taxes. So, now, with three jobs, a car I had to purchase in order to accomplish this, I'm ass-out, and no closer to MOVING OUT/AWAY as you have suggested. WITH THREE JOBS. Slowly, I reduced down to one job, because I couldn't afford the gas. But now the job with the best hours and pay (85+ hours) is the one job I need a car for. After a particularly rough day, I sat down an calculated my liabilities versus income. I pay $2-300 more a year than I actually MAKE, and that's not including my college loans. Or my hospital bills from working so much overtime that I made myself sick and used all of that overtime pay in the ER. So, no vacation to relax, no money to move. UHaul? To wear? Everywhere in my area is now out of my price range. I've been forced to look out of state. But until I can find a job out of state, it has to be nearby. So I can't even move that far, because then I wouldn't be able to afford the gas for travel. And I can't look for a job without the guarantee that I'd have a place to LIVE (anything more than 2 weeks is too soon for apartment companies to give you a guarantee, and you can't tell a job that you want to wait until you can find a place nearby-- you applied to their place because you needed a job NOW).



Now, not yet once did I ask for govt assistance. I have in the past-- got $16 a month for food. FOOD.



So instead of being able to move like I wanted to next month, I had to budget for Sept. But guess what? I had two flat tires in the span of a month. Now the budget to move won't be seen until Jan. And that's if I get the job I'd applied for earlier in the year.



On that note, wish me luck, my interview is on Wednesday!



I haven't asked for anyone's money, time, space or amenities. I've asked for a job. Jobs. Many times. I even had to quit going to school. Twice, because of the demands of the piss-poor jobs I've had to work. I actually got the car so I could finish my degree in Forensic Microbiology. But the original car I was poised to get was sold before I saved up enough money for down payment. So I had to drop because I wouldn't have been able to make it to my labs.



After all this, you can't assume that it's always the fault of the poor. Pick up a book called "The Working Poor." It was a book I was forced to read during my first semester, and it makes me angry and sad everytime I pick it up. I believe the author's name is David Shipley. I might have spelled it wrong. But please, don't insult the people who are actually trying to LIVE.



I think everyone should get an even amount of taxes. My 25% shouldn't be the same as someone else's 10-15%. And yes. That's how much is taken from me. Before they tax my taxes.



Granted, there are those that abuse the system, and I would like to personally curb stomp each one of them. Or throw them all in barrels and put them out in the middle of the Pacific. Maybe wherever the Malaysian plane maybe. Forever lost. But don't lump me in with them. The big corps are the ones that need to change. And seeing as how that won't happen willingly or quickly, all I can do is learn what I can do as a citizen and trying to enact these changes.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: amfirst1

Just out of curiosity.
What is the corporate tax rates in other countries which or on par with the American economy?
How much would changing our current corporate tax rtaes change the over all income disparity in the U S?
I thought since you would advocate this position, surely you can give us some numbers to consider.
edit on 25-4-2014 by teamcommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
There is always the option of not working for someone who pays you "serf" wages.

2nd


Yes because everyone knows there is an outrageous number of open jobs out there. Not to mention it is now free to move where other jobs are located. Yes these are good times indeed.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: MOMof3

SO, he paid no income taxes, yet uses things that I pay for in taxes.

Thought we wanted "fairness" in life.

Oh wait, I forgot. It is different.

Always different.


Income taxes are taken out of every paycheck you receive. Maybe you should get someone to point it out for you.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: DragynWyllow

Very nice 1st post. Thank you for sharing your story.
Welcome.
Enjoy your 1st star.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Oh good hell.

And what do you think is refunded back to people around April, hmmm?
Magic 0bama money?


I am well aware that it is removed from a persons paycheck. And I am very much aware that when people file for their taxes, the refund is returning those funds back to the person.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: DragynWyllow

Yes, and you have to understand that current economic policy makes this a bad environment for any business to hire. They have no certainty about what their future expenses will be. Obamacare is just one prime example; the injection of new regulations is another, and it's one steroids. Every new rule a company has to comply with is expensive. My husband could tell you. His job is working with regulations and how they impact his company, and he sees the costs accruing yearly.

Every employee represents a significant long-term investment for a company because of all the costs associated with the hire beyond what you see on your pay stub.

Until the economic situation settles into some stability so that owners can plan again, then it will stay like it is now with a lot of places on hiring freezes or "do the most with the least" policies (what my husband's company is calling it). Believe me, they could use the extra head count, but until things change in the economic climate, it won't happen.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: teamcommander
What is the corporate tax rates in other countries which or on par with the American economy?


G7
Canada: Low-11%, High 31%
China: 25%
France: 33.33%
Germany: 29.8% (Average)
Russia: 20, 13, 6, and 0% depending on industry/size.
UK: 21% (will be decreased to 20% April 1st, 2015)
USA: Low-0%, High 54%

All of which is moot unless you crunch each individually to account for loopholes, shelters, etc, as well as all other costs of doing business.

If it was as simple as set tax rate to x and y will happen, things would be significantly simpler.


How much would changing our current corporate tax rates change the over all income disparity in the U S?

It would vary by industry and by other government policies. In general, if it was a blanket reduction, with no other policy changes, then the income disparity will increase as the rate goes down, and increase as the rate goes up. This should give you a hint as to where the problems stem from...it isn't at the tax rate level.

Good times!
edit on 25-4-2014 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: DragynWyllow

Macman, Not everyone has the choice to work anywhere they want on a whim. Most of the time it simply comes down to being hired. If getting hired were that easy, with my employment history, even without a degree, I should have businesses clamouring to hire me! And I did, before 2009. Unfortunately that is not the case. I've mainly been turned down because $10/hr was simply too much to ask for. They want part-timers, people who probably still live at home with their parents so that their need for more hours and more money is greatly reduced. They want degree-level skill for entry-level wages and time.


A few things that came out of the paragraph that I thought worthy of discussing further.

First, it's government intervention and regulations that make people a bigger and bigger financial risk to take on. The shift in the US is quite likely to be towards low staffing numbers and part time/contractors rather than full time. This is one of the expected impacts of the Affordable Care Act, which essentially penalises employers who exceed a certain number of employees. Of course, there are plenty of large companies who realistically have no way of cutting staffing to those levels, but even there they will be making staffing decisions on the basis of limiting outlay as much as possible.

Sorry, I said it was penalising companies, I mean to say that it "encourages employers to be socially responsible", by making it increasingly financially nonviable to employee people full time.

On top of that, increases in regulations generally lead to increased employer contributions/payments in relation to staff - not payments to staff, but payments to the government.

Of course, that isn't so bad if the regulations actually help the company make more money... but when has a regulation ever done that?

So one of the first hurdles you are facing in your jobsearch is that the government is slowly pricing you out of the market - you are too big a financial liability to take on as a new employer unless the company have no other choice. Or unless you have some stellar money-making skills that will outweigh the potential additional costs. Basically, you get paid less because government intervention has reduced your value to the company. The company aren't considering the $10 p/h you ask, they are considering the $10 + all the other contributions on top p/h that you will actually cost them.

Now, on to the second hurdle. It's a buyer's market. Less jobs means more people looking so wages go down. Basic economics, especially when employment represents such an increasing liability for the employer. They want degree-level candidates for entry-level work because people with degrees will agree to do it. Often those sorts of requirements are simple filters to reduce the massive number of applications they will receive. In a better market where those candidates could justify holding out for a better wage, the companies would either have to offer more or drop the requirements for the role.

Don't blame the "big corporations" - they are some of the few that can still afford to hire you despite the government regulation of the market. Blame the government for creating a situation where many companies are simply too frightened to hire because the government has made you - yes you, personally, and every other person looking for a job - into a liability. Sad times indeed.

All that aside, good luck with your search and I hope you find a job that will support you both financially and professionally.

Edited to add: one of the best decisions I ever made was to work for myself - though I am actually required to be self-employed for one of my roles anyway, as certain work is not allowed to be carried out from "behind" a company due to a requirement for personal accountability.

Lots of companies love having a good working relationship with a trusted outside contractor - they can pay to get a job done, one payment, none of the hidden extras that come with employment, and they only need to pay me for agreed work. No sickpay, pensions, holiday pay, health insurance... they can pay me more per hour than an equivalent employee, while still paying less per hour overall as there are no additional contributions needed. I have never been so happy in my work, even with all the additional risk I have to take on.

If you have a skill set and experience that is genuinely that needed, look into starting up your own firm, even as a one-man band. Also, once you start exploring the red-tape and hassle that surrounds running a company, you might have a lot more sympathy for them

edit on 25-4-2014 by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-4-2014 by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

Yep, truer words were never spoken. Both my husband and my aunt are in positions to be able to try to hire and fire when they get the green light from above. Both could use extra head count (more employees), but they aren't being given that green light and won't be for the foreseeable future due to the uncertainties. Even worse, all the new facilities being built are being built in other countries in my husband's company although the company has reiterated its commitment to the ones it has domestically and continues to develop them.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: EvillerBob

Yep, truer words were never spoken. Both my husband and my aunt are in positions to be able to try to hire and fire when they get the green light from above. Both could use extra head count (more employees), but they aren't being given that green light and won't be for the foreseeable future due to the uncertainties. Even worse, all the new facilities being built are being built in other countries in my husband's company although the company has reiterated its commitment to the ones it has domestically and continues to develop them.



We've had similar staffing discussions in one of my companies. In the UK we've had a new working pension brought in that would require us to set up and contribute to a pension scheme. In principle there's nothing wrong with it, I'd love to be able to offer people a whole raft of benefits to attract and keep quality staff. We just can't afford it. Certainly, this new rule doesn't add a massive amount to the overheads, but it's one more drip in a big ol' bucket. No more staff for now, I'll be taking on the extra workload that ideally would have been shared by a new member of staff.

I tend to find that there is a line between employees and employers. Not an "us and them" line, one against the other, but a line of perception. People who have stood on both sides of the line have a very different way of seeing the world. I think it shows in discussions like this.

The reason why us pesky greed-filled capitalists are saying "it's not our fault"... it because it's not our fault. Genuinely. We want to grow and make money. We want to have so much business coming through the doors that we'll hire every good candidate who applies. If we're not doing it, it's for a very good reason.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Ketsuko, Thank you, I do understand. I have worked in AP/AR in a couple of companies and I see it IS scary. "Do the most with the least" was a term I'd heard for a long time, but never understood for years. Now I do. It's what everyone is doing, on both sides.

Olivine, Thank you! I actually have close friends who (are unfortunately much more privileged than myself) feel very strongly in favour of the situation that is happening, now. 'Get rid of the lazy person!' They say. I can't disagree any more.

EvillerBob, I definitely understand, I don't have to be a business owner to get it, the way you've put it so succinctly. I've never wanted to go into business myself, I'd rather just travel. I'm actually quite happy working in a corner, pushing papers, always have. But I'd rather be in a lab, working forensics. I love studying languages, with Japanese being my preference, but I pick up others fairly well if I'm especially enthusiastic. But I've never found going into business for myself appealing. I've never had trouble selling myself for interviews, but when I'm turned away, it's for someone who's getting a lot less pay than myself. I would feel slightly indignant, but anything less won't pay my bills. Anything more will cause me to lose more money. So I'm coming to the conclusion that I just have to wait it out and cross my fingers. I can't force anyone to give me a job, and I can't get anymore jobs unless I'm willing to pay the govt again a second year in a row.

I wish you and Ketsuko in all of your business endeavours! You guys are under more stress than simply waiting for a paycheck! I respect all self-owned business men/women, I'm certainly not cut out for it!

And thank you for your responses, I enjoy intelligent conversations, and I'm glad I've decided to join the forum!



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join