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.

 

Can anyone debunk this Liberal claim thank you ?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
As an increase in taxes, step to an increase in price of goods and services, thus stepping to an increase in price overall.


Not true for income taxes, and if the business is in the situation that it will sell less stuff if the stuff costs more. (And even monopolies are in that position).
Mr X sells 1 product a year, for 1000$. He gets taxed 20%. So he makes 800$
Taxes increase to 25%. He still wants to make 800$
So he increases the price to 1066$
But, now ask yourself, If you would buy the product at 1066 just as readily as at 1000... Why isn't Mr X demanding 1066$ to start with?
If I could sell it for 1066 just as easily as for 1000... I would, wouldn't you?




posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


and in contrast the left would like to see all 310 million ameircans

getting a government paycheck.

145 million already their close



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Howakan
Right now, the more you make the more you pay. Higher earners pay a higher percentage too. So how can you say the rich arent paying their share.

Someone who has worked hard and EARNED $300,000 will pay $105,000 in personal tax
Someone who only EARNED $30,000 will pay $4,500 in personal tax


Although, I have never EVER met a person who has earned $300,000, who didn't have an accountant
who could almost eliminate all tax liability through the IRS revenue code. You earn $300,000 a year because
you benefit from the tax code, because you spend your money wisely and get the best CPA you can afford.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 



I also have a different opinion when it comes to classifying something as a "business" and a "corporation". I think small business and up and coming large businesses should not be put into the same category as the "corporation" that I work for. "Corporations" have a responsibility due to their effect on the economic stability of the world, they also have a responsibility to the mass amount of employees they have hired, to provide them with the adequate benefits and compensation that they deserve.


I think the key word here is "business". As bad as it sounds, big business has the greatest responsibility to their stockholders, not their employees or the world in general. Businesses exist 'to make money". Period. They owe nothing to their employees, except the paycheck that they promised. They owe nothing to the world, except the product that they promised. They owe their stockholders(owners) the best effort possible for the biggest returns possible. Period.

I know it sound callous, but its just how business works.

Thieves, on the other hand, are thieves. There are many out there, but they are not the majority. But I truly believe in free enterprise. If you can make it legally, then you deserve to keep it. That goes for small or big business.

edit on 23-9-2011 by Howakan because: spellin



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman



How is it ethical? It is that persons business. It is not owned by anyone else.
Higher taxes do not create jobs, as an increase in taxes, step to an increase in price of goods and services, thus stepping to an increase in price overall.


Higher taxes do create jobs if the owner decides to reinvested profits back into the business as opposed to
paying themselves into a higher tax bracket. You have such simplified concept that it does not even begin
to examine all the possibility found in the Tax Code. Why would I pay myself a million dollars and get taxed on that money, when that same million can be used to increase my output and the networth of my business several fold?

I know one thing

There aren't any millionaires on this thread

You guys think like bill payers, not ill players

edit on 23-9-2011 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by macman
 



How is it ethical? It is that persons business. It is not owned by anyone else. Higher taxes do not create jobs, as an increase in taxes, step to an increase in price of goods and services, thus stepping to an increase in price overall.


I never said higher taxes help a lot, I say they may increase it by a little but not enough to make an impact.

I also have a different opinion when it comes to classifying something as a "business" and a "corporation". I think small business and up and coming large businesses should not be put into the same category as the "corporation" that I work for. "Corporations" have a responsibility due to their effect on the economic stability of the world, they also have a responsibility to the mass amount of employees they have hired, to provide them with the adequate benefits and compensation that they deserve. When executives start hoarding the money, deceiving/stealing from their customers and employees, and subverting government that is when things need to change. And though we want to believe in a system of justice that would prevent this from happening, what happens is an out of court settlement which covers up the problem.

The "its all mine so screw everyone else" mentality is what has messed up the world since the beginning of civilization.
edit on 23-9-2011 by Openeye because: (no reason given)


The main reasoning behind Corporations is to protect the owner(s) from law suites and having their personal property being a target for the law suite.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
employers have to "tax match" their employees, how is having to pay more to match the raised taxes create jobs? the whole BS about causing them to spend more on their company is bull too, their going to spend on their company regardless....



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 




What you are missing, is that the demand here does not leave, if McDonalds left America's shores, there would still be a demand for hamburgers. Market shares transfer, they do not disappear altogether


Erm no, that's another principle of economics called marginalization. When costs increase, expenses increase, prices increase. If we taxed McDonalds more their prices would fluctuate to meet the adjusted rates.. yes, that means they'd end up paying more in taxes, but they could recouped the profit.

Also for massive corporations like that increasing their corporate tax CAN still mean leaving the country.. if say they decided they wanted to be based in China, their Corporate HQ can be in China, and China could tax, at a lower rate, for all of McDonalds profits, all over the World. The US Gov would loose tens of billions.

The Gov is very careful about corporate taxes for that reason alone .. take for instance Switzerland .. there are more corporations than their are people, the vast majority belong to mailboxes. It's their single highest source of income. That's all it takes, for a host country to tax international receipts is a mailbox. The USA has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the World.. we are not competitive in many areas of our economy, taxes included.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

The main reasoning behind Corporations is to protect the owner(s) from law suites and having their personal property being a target for the law suite.


Yes, but that is not the only benefit, that is the mistake in your logic.
Individuals incorporate to take advantage of the tax advantages provided for corporations.
It is an investment vehicle, that is why most businesses are corporations not,
sole propriety ventures. Liability is only part of the motivation



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by narwahl

Originally posted by macman
As an increase in taxes, step to an increase in price of goods and services, thus stepping to an increase in price overall.


Not true for income taxes, and if the business is in the situation that it will sell less stuff if the stuff costs more. (And even monopolies are in that position).
Mr X sells 1 product a year, for 1000$. He gets taxed 20%. So he makes 800$
Taxes increase to 25%. He still wants to make 800$
So he increases the price to 1066$
But, now ask yourself, If you would buy the product at 1066 just as readily as at 1000... Why isn't Mr X demanding 1066$ to start with?
If I could sell it for 1066 just as easily as for 1000... I would, wouldn't you?


A very 2 dimensional way of presenting it, but ok.
As taxes go up, Mr X has now a 5% increase in costs, as the tax increase is spread not only to his business. So it now costs 5% more to provide his widget.
He sold it for $1000, with $800 in his pocket.
Now, he has to sell it for $1066 to keep $800 in his pocket.
If that is what the public will pay, then good for him.
If not, he is out of money somewhere.

The purpose of a business is not to provide jobs for workers. It is to provide the owner an income.
The jobs are just a bi-product.

When the market is left alone, then the buying public will basically set the price.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by macman

The main reasoning behind Corporations is to protect the owner(s) from law suites and having their personal property being a target for the law suite.


Yes, but that is not the only benefit, that is the mistake in your logic.
Individuals incorporate to take advantage of the tax advantages provided for corporations.
It is an investment vehicle, that is why most businesses are corporations not,
sole propriety ventures. Liability is only part of the motivation


I understand that.
There is no mistake, as with it protecting the owner's private property, the company or corporation owns the vehicles and so on.

What I stated is a base, one part retort for simple consumption.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


True, just as I said in my first post .. companies would normally reinvest the funds to avoid taxes. BUT .. small businesses usually get the shaft in that kind of scenario. And large corporation can use the money to expand overseas.. it's still a reduction in profit, thus lower taxes.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


Well, I would agree that higher earners can afford better accountants. And better accounts will find loop holes and savings for you. But, there is no way any accountant can make $300k in earnings disappear.

Also, once you are in this tax bracket(35%), you are paying quarterly, not annually. So the government has 3/4 of your money before your ever file a return. Do you really think there are people getting $100k tax refund checks? I dont think so. I know LOTS of people who earn this kinda money and they all pay more taxes than the average $50k earner.

So, maybe a someone in the 35% bracket finds a way to work it down to 25-30%, he is still paying 20 times more than that of the average earner. So, if all Americans receive "equal" benefits/education/services from our government, that 35% earner is paying waaaaay more than an "equal" share.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by mastahunta
 




What you are missing, is that the demand here does not leave, if McDonalds left America's shores, there would still be a demand for hamburgers. Market shares transfer, they do not disappear altogether


Erm no, that's another principle of economics called marginalization. When costs increase, expenses increase, prices increase. If we taxed McDonalds more their prices would fluctuate to meet the adjusted rates.. yes, that means they'd end up paying more in taxes, but they could recouped the profit.

Also for massive corporations like that increasing their corporate tax CAN still mean leaving the country.. if say they decided they wanted to be based in China, their Corporate HQ can be in China, and China could tax, at a lower rate, for all of McDonalds profits, all over the World. The US Gov would loose tens of billions.

The Gov is very careful about corporate taxes for that reason alone .. take for instance Switzerland .. there are more corporations than their are people, the vast majority belong to mailboxes. It's their single highest source of income. That's all it takes, for a host country to tax international receipts is a mailbox. The USA has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the World.. we are not competitive in many areas of our economy, taxes included.



If you read your previous post, you made it sound as if the venture were going to leave America,
didn't you? If a company abandoned it's place in the market place, their market share would be
taken by competitors. Now if they repatriated to another country, I wonder if they would get the
same tax code that provides endless ways to bolster capital investment?

In the end, I am simply stating that tax rate has little to do with the end of the year tax burden.

It is not uncommon to have zero tax burden and recoup renovation/expansion costs simply
through accounting measures.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by macman

The main reasoning behind Corporations is to protect the owner(s) from law suites and having their personal property being a target for the law suite.


Yes, but that is not the only benefit, that is the mistake in your logic.
Individuals incorporate to take advantage of the tax advantages provided for corporations.
It is an investment vehicle, that is why most businesses are corporations not,
sole propriety ventures. Liability is only part of the motivation


I understand that.
There is no mistake, as with it protecting the owner's private property, the company or corporation owns the vehicles and so on.

What I stated is a base, one part retort for simple consumption.


I know that, but I am saying that keep this conversation is exactly how people are duped into thinking
that tax rate has anything to do with actual tax liability.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


You don't have to leave the market to leave the country. Ford builds most of it's parts overseas now, many cars are now being assembled in Mexico .. they still sell in the USA.

Now assume they moved their corporate HQ to Malaysia..... they'd still sell to America, but only pay taxes for what they earn in America. Malaysia gets every other market. Hence the competition to keep massive corporations with lucrative deals. We do a lot for corporations..

Second highest source of income for the United States?

Oil taxes and permits.

Every war fought since the 80's?

For oil corporations.


Edit to add: The irony that Progressives hate oil corporations and foreign wars for oil, but without them the social fabric of the welfare state would collapse instantly ..
edit on 9/23/2011 by Rockpuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by macman

The main reasoning behind Corporations is to protect the owner(s) from law suites and having their personal property being a target for the law suite.


Yes, but that is not the only benefit, that is the mistake in your logic.
Individuals incorporate to take advantage of the tax advantages provided for corporations.
It is an investment vehicle, that is why most businesses are corporations not,
sole propriety ventures. Liability is only part of the motivation


I understand that.
There is no mistake, as with it protecting the owner's private property, the company or corporation owns the vehicles and so on.

What I stated is a base, one part retort for simple consumption.


I know that, but I am saying that keep this conversation is exactly how people are duped into thinking
that tax rate has anything to do with actual tax liability.


Yes. I agree.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I own a subchapter s corporation and incorporated only to shield myself from liability. There is zero tax benefit for me because I incorporated. But there would be major risk to me, my home, my savings if I didnt.

My tax rate is "exactly" the same, whether incorporated or not. It is exactly the same whether I keep the money or leave it in the company. Doesnt matter. And C corps are taxed at an even higher rate.

And I agree with your premise that one way corporations can avoid taxes is to spend their profits on growth, before they show up as profits. They can do this by expanding, purchasing new equipment and hiring additional staff. But, if they do this, then they are creating jobs and stimulating the economy. A win win, if you ask me. So, its not like they are getting over on anyone, they are either helping the economy by paying taxes or creating a growing business.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by mastahunta
 


True, just as I said in my first post .. companies would normally reinvest the funds to avoid taxes. BUT .. small businesses usually get the shaft in that kind of scenario. And large corporation can use the money to expand overseas.. it's still a reduction in profit, thus lower taxes.


As an individual with an L.L.C and myself as my only employee, I can virtually, fly, drive, lodge and
eat in a way that diminishes my tax burden under the auspices of business expense. But there is,
certainly a balancing act to be had.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
and I would add that they have now create a CAT tax(corporate activity tax), which was implemented about 3 years ago.....so, no matter what, if your a corp you are paying. We also get taxed on our assets/property. So the more reinvestment we do, the more additions we build, the more trucks we buy, the more we pay.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join