Can anyone debunk this Liberal claim thank you ?

reply to post by Howakan


That gets into a Keynesian philosophy of perpetual growth. The West has seen, in it's own way, perpetual growth since the 1940's .. eventual the mechanics of the system will get so large, so spread over such a vast array of areas, that the system implodes. Which it has. Banking fell first because they used their excess cash to buy everything under the sun, and other corporations expanded on a mass sum of credit ... better to spend and expand than to sit idle and be taxed.

"To big to fail" comes to mind. It's like a law of nature, economics.. you can manipulate corporations to expand but eventually you will violate a principle rule and the system will crash.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
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)

Well I guess that's why we have subsidies

I did not know about the oil taxes and permits, that does make a lot of sense, the correlation between
oil wars and welfare is unfortunate, however.

Originally posted by Howakan
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.

You need a better accountant than...

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Howakan

 

That gets into a Keynesian philosophy of perpetual growth.

An article from 1972

www.time.com...

IN biology, growth is a distinguishing mark of life; in economics it has long seemed the sine qua non of the good life. Adam Smith argued in 1776 that "it is not the actual greatness of national wealth, but its continual increase, which occasions a rise in the wages of labor." Economists ever since have insisted that only a rapid increase in output could lift mankind out of poverty. Politicians of every ideology have dedicated themselves to raising production, to the applause of their constituents.
Now, however, many scientists and social reformers have begun to regard perpetual economic growth as malignant. Their increasingly fashionable fear is that production increases will destroy civilization, either by stripping the earth of natural resources or by choking humanity in a cloud of pollution. Sicco Mansholt, outgoing president of the European Common Market Commission, has remarked that in Western Europe, America and Japan, gross national product "has been thought of as something sacred—but G.N.P. is diabolical." Walter Heller, a member of TIME'S Board of Economists, complains that a speaker who ventures a good word for rising output is immediately assailed as a "growth maniac" or an "abominable growthman."
Antigrowth sentiment has been swelling for years, but the biggest push came from the appearance last winter of a 197-page book, The Limits to Growth, which avowedly aims at "a Copernican revolution of the mind" (TIME, Jan. 24). It was prepared by a team of 17 scientists, ranging from an Iranian population expert to a Norwegian specialist on pollution. The study was begun by Professor Jay Forrester, an M.I.T. pioneer in computer analysis of likely future trends, and completed by his 30-year-old protege, Dennis L. Meadows, a business professor who has recently moved from M.I.T. to Dartmouth. The study was sponsored, endorsed and publicized by the Club of Rome, an organization of distinguished industrialists, bankers and scientists from 25 countries.
Meadows is no latter-day Malthus prophesying doom on the basis of intuition; instead he has produced the first vision of the apocalypse ever prepared by computer. His team built a computer model of the world, fed the machine masses of data on population and industrial growth rates, farm yields and the like, and constructed "feedback loops" to gauge the effects of changes in one variable, like food production, on another, like birth rates. In restrained, nonhysterical, at times almost apologetic language, the team insists that unchecked growth can have only one outcome: "A rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity" some time before the year 2100.

Read more: www.time.com...

reply to post by mastahunta

You need a better accountant than...

Or you need to read up and learn about the different types of corporations. The premise that incorporating and hiring an accountant will allow you to avoid paying taxes is just silly. Really.

Please explain to me what an account does that will eliminate my tax liability. And dont just say read the tax code. Apparently, after 22 years of owning my own business, I and my accountants know much less about this than you do. So please "explain" it in common mans terms, so I can understand.

Originally posted by Howakan
reply to post by mastahunta

 

You need a better accountant than...

Or you need to read up and learn about the different types of corporations. The premise that incorporating and hiring an accountant will allow you to avoid paying taxes is just silly. Really.

Please explain to me what an account does that will eliminate my tax liability. And dont just say read the tax code. Apparently, after 22 years of owning my own business, I and my accountants know much less about this than you do. So please "explain" it in common mans terms, so I can understand.

Or maybe you choose the wrong incorporation model???

Maybe you should consider creating two entities, you could have a C corp manage, market and provide services
to your S corp. the fees the C corp charges your S corp could come out of your pre tax dollars. The C corp would not only have its own expenses to deduct, but it could end its fiscal year at any time during the year which would
give your room to play with other tax strategies and deferment of payment.

You need an accountant that uses the 60,000 pages of tax code, not 50...

That gets into a Keynesian philosophy of perpetual growth. The West has seen, in it's own way, perpetual growth since the 1940's .. eventual the mechanics of the system will get so large, so spread over such a vast array of areas, that the system implodes. Which it has. Banking fell first because they used their excess cash to buy everything under the sun, and other corporations expanded on a mass sum of credit ... better to spend and expand than to sit idle and be taxed. "To big to fail" comes to mind. It's like a law of nature, economics.. you can manipulate corporations to expand but eventually you will violate a principle rule and the system will crash.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Very interesting indeed. Sounds logical to me and is probably something we see everyday. Personally, I like to earn and keep as much as possible, while leaving enough in the company for a rainy day(or season). I also pay taxes on those earnings, contrary to what some may believe. Big business controls a lot, but in the end, small business is the majority and really what makes America tick.

Originally posted by Howakan

That gets into a Keynesian philosophy of perpetual growth. The West has seen, in it's own way, perpetual growth since the 1940's .. eventual the mechanics of the system will get so large, so spread over such a vast array of areas, that the system implodes. Which it has. Banking fell first because they used their excess cash to buy everything under the sun, and other corporations expanded on a mass sum of credit ... better to spend and expand than to sit idle and be taxed. "To big to fail" comes to mind. It's like a law of nature, economics.. you can manipulate corporations to expand but eventually you will violate a principle rule and the system will crash.

reply to post by Rockpuck

 

Very interesting indeed. Sounds logical to me and is probably something we see everyday. Personally, I like to earn and keep as much as possible, while leaving enough in the company for a rainy day(or season). I also pay taxes on those earnings, contrary to what some may believe. Big business controls a lot, but in the end, small business is the majority and really what makes America tick.

The thing is, you can service your own business with another business that you own. That is a way to make
investments while having that same investment enrich you, better your other company and decrease your
personal liability. You can even charge premiums on what your other company charges, based upon retail
cost, then you maximize all your investments as to be aligned with tax code.

$3,000 for this provided by the C corp, paid for by the S corp

$4,500 deduction for that, provided by the C corp, billed to the S corp.

reply to post by mastahunta

Or maybe you choose the wrong incorporation model??? Maybe you should consider creating two entities, you could have a C corp manage, market and provide services to your S corp. the fees the C corp charges your S corp could come out of your pre tax dollars. The C corp would not only have its own expenses to deduct, but it could end its fiscal year at any time during the year which would give your room to play with other tax strategies and deferment of payment. You need an accountant that uses the 60,000 pages of tax code, not 50...

Well, Ill be damned. Pretty good answer. We did something similar to that in the 90's, by creating a leasing company for my trucks and equipment. That company owned and maintained the equipment, whilst leasing it to my construction company. The leasing company never made a profit, of course, most of which was diminished by depreciating the assets and leasing at a very low rate.

Conversely though, my construction company experienced much higher profits because we no longer owned or maintained a fleet. We also lost all our depreciation credits, because we no longer had all those assets. In the end, it was a wash financially and a bigger administrative headache. I reverted back to simply s corp and thats where I live now.

Lotta work trying to circumvent the system. Lotta money too. Sadly, margins are so bad in my industry right now, its a moot point. Nowhere near the profits we were experiencing 10 years ago, thats for sure.

Over tax the corporations and the will over price their product.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Ha. Page not found.

I love the tagline on his site:

"America's #1 Progressive Host & NY Times Bestselling Author"

That sounds like BS, too.

NEVER HEARD OF HIM.

I used to listen to him about a year ago, what can I say, I'm a talk show junkie.
He was on a local station that catered to the Proglodytes, but as luck and fate would have it the format did not survive and had to be changed.
I think Michael Savage now fills that spot.

Originally posted by Howakan
reply to post by mastahunta

 

Or maybe you choose the wrong incorporation model??? Maybe you should consider creating two entities, you could have a C corp manage, market and provide services to your S corp. the fees the C corp charges your S corp could come out of your pre tax dollars. The C corp would not only have its own expenses to deduct, but it could end its fiscal year at any time during the year which would give your room to play with other tax strategies and deferment of payment. You need an accountant that uses the 60,000 pages of tax code, not 50...

Well, Ill be damned. Pretty good answer. We did something similar to that in the 90's, by creating a leasing company for my trucks and equipment. That company owned and maintained the equipment, whilst leasing it to my construction company. The leasing company never made a profit, of course, most of which was diminished by depreciating the assets and leasing at a very low rate.

Conversely though, my construction company experienced much higher profits because we no longer owned or maintained a fleet. We also lost all our depreciation credits, because we no longer had all those assets. In the end, it was a wash financially and a bigger administrative headache. I reverted back to simply s corp and thats where I live now.

Lotta work trying to circumvent the system. Lotta money too. Sadly, margins are so bad in my industry right now, its a moot point. Nowhere near the profits we were experiencing 10 years ago, thats for sure.

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

I'm sorry it's hard for you

I recommend this book, you should buy it within five minutes, get it used for cheap and just do it.
Sounds like you need to formulate a better strategy, don't take that as an insult, change it now,
turn it around. This book is basic and is has good solutions for just about anyone with business
ambition.

Here is a used copy for $1.99, just do it, you'll be glad you did.

here

reply to post by mastahunta


You know what, it is hard....always has been. Im game to read anything of value and have read many, many books on business. One more couldnt hurt, as most have not focus on this aspect of business.

One of my bibles has been the E Myth, which basically splits owners into 3 groups.....managers, technicians and entrepreneurs. It encourages you to "realize" what you are and hire what you arent. I got myself as an Entrepreneur/technician, so I have work hard on the administrative aspect. Dont misunderstand, Ive always done very well for myself and family, but hey, if I can keep more in my pocket, then thats what I wanna do.

just bought it.....better make me rich, thats all Im sayin.....

Originally posted by macman

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.

Slow down there, buddy! You don't wanna go spouting off that anti-American gobbledygook!

/TOA

Originally posted by Howakan
reply to post by mastahunta

 

You know what, it is hard....always has been. Im game to read anything of value and have read many, many books on business. One more couldnt hurt, as most have not focus on this aspect of business.

One of my bibles has been the E Myth, which basically splits owners into 3 groups.....managers, technicians and entrepreneurs. It encourages you to "realize" what you are and hire what you arent. I got myself as an Entrepreneur/technician, so I have work hard on the administrative aspect. Dont misunderstand, Ive always done very well for myself and family, but hey, if I can keep more in my pocket, then thats what I wanna do.

This book basically identifies the basic steps to sustainable wealth, more importantly the order in which you should implement these steps. I am glad you do well by your family, that is definitely a good thing, cheers to
you. Enjoy the book, if I didn't like mine so much I would send it to you...

Originally posted by Howakan
just bought it.....better make me rich, thats all Im sayin.....

Well if you get rich and you need a faithful associate , I am up for making you richer

reply to post by mastahunta


Fascinating article, I'm looking into the actual scientific side of the study and anything done since then.

It's an accepted fact among non-Keynesian economist that perpetual growth is impossible, and that a viable economy should see a moderate recession at least once every 10 years..

Unfortunately for the .. well the World.. Keynesian economist sit on the boards of every major central bank, most banks, and seat the entire Western World's economic councils for Governing bodies.

netrightdaily.com...

Some background info for people wanting to know what I'm even talking about when I say "Keynesian" .. The two main schools of thought in modern economics originates from Friedrich August von Hayek and John Maynard Keynes (Keynesian)

Also sometimes called "Keynesian vs Classical Economics"

Keynes was the economics adviser that no one listened to during the debates over the Treaty of Versailes after WW1 and predicted WW2, afterwhich his economic model became the basis that the entire Western World was restructured around.

As Hayek argued in his book The Fatal Conceit, “the curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” Central planners can try day and night to make the economy work perfectly, but they never have the perfect information that would yield the results they hope for. Read more at NetRightDaily.com: netrightdaily.com...

The battle of Keynes Vs Hayek continues to this day, we call it "stimulus and austerity" now though, since to few know their histories.

Ahem.. some people don't like reading about boring economics.. so a video to explain lol....

reply to post by neo96


Yeah and the Bush tax cuts totally got the economy booming....I mean there were so many jobs created by those job creators that it made my head spin.

reply to post by TupacShakur


yeah well 3 years of the current potus sure aint done

crap

Seriously, I think we are getting to a point where even if we tax them less, they still won't create jobs.
Globalization isn't good for rich countries, it's good for rich people.

1) We should definitively tax investors in shares.
2) Also, we should tax companies if either they move part of their company outside of the US, or if they purchase parts else then the US which could have been gotten from US grounds in the first place.
3) Companies should pay their fair share of taxes too, if the profits they make are not used to create new jobs or to buy American products.

You see where I'm getting at here?

The whole liberal or right wing has got it all wrong, these models do not work anymore, well in my point of view...which is backed up by all the s&^t going on at the moment.