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.

 

100% tax rate in the polls as we speak (France).

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


As I respect your OP and as a Moderator, I hope I don't get in trouble for the following...


As a US citizen though...


However, the issue in France is quite scary to say the least

edit on 4/15/12 by ThePublicEnemyNo1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
370k cap? That seems a little low.

10 million would be a pretty fair cap.

There's not a single damn reason why anyone needs multiple porsches, multiple mansions, and much more.
And there's not a single damn person who did so much work that he actually deserves those things.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 





If I am making $10,000 a year and the flat tax rate is, say, 10% (I have heard reports it would need to be 20% to balance the US budget, but let's be generous), I pay $1000 in tax. That leaves me a mere $9000, when even the full $10,000 was not enough to feed my family.


If the 1k didn't go towards interest on bogus loans, you'd have more money in play by not being tolled, registered, and gassed to your grave. Translates into the burden of sales tax too. Moreover, the top tier syndicate transfers funds outside our jurisdiction while corporate shields provide their immunity. A - no corporate tax structure - would lead to the worse off situation of legal maneuvers ranging from patent attorneys to M&A's. Are you honestly trying to reason with me? If so, begin with a level dose of common sense.




To reuse my example above, under our present system (loopholes excluded), the poor man making $10,000 pays nothing while the wealthy man making $1,000,000 pays $280,000 (assuming a 28% tax bracket).


You must be thinking doughnut holes. Sorry, you don't glaze over loopholes. They're embedded as part of our progressive tax system. Again, a misconception since the poor man, poor man's mother/ father, and their extended family get slammed as consumers while shopping school supplies and clothing to paying at the pump.




Now, to my idea of removing the corporate tax structure entirely: it has nothing to do with equalizing tax rates among citizens. It has everything to do with removing olne of those loopholes I mentioned above. If there is no income tax for corporations, there are also no income tax credits for corporations, and the income is still taxed when it is realized by the owners.


So no taxes on businesses - equivalent of stripping revenue/ ability to pay yields on government bonds, but yes to a personal income tax footing the interest on central banks loans. I get it. So where's Charlie Sheen when you need him? Perhaps he could snort the consumerism smothering us to allow for a majority to live freely.





That allows corporations to grow, the smaller moreso than the larger (allowing for more competition), and in the process creates jobs in a more open marketplace. Jobs decrease the number of individuals who require government assistance and allow them to begin paying taxes as well. All this then fills government coffers and actually reduces the deficit while allowing more people to have a higher standard of living.


They've already grown to four major banks, 3-4 major telecom, under a dozen media houses, and a uniform oil and gas industry that spans the globe. Do you know what code for competition is? Lowest bidders and...

These corporate entities have a major goal in pursuit of maximizing profits. Less workers, less benefits, less wages, less expenses, less quality, less regulation... Higher prices, higher volume, higher exposure, higher efficiency in philanthropy (if you care to name it that), higher ranking in cornering the World market. Code word: Monopolizing. By methods of hypnosis to blackmail.


While referencing our politicians... Do as Dylan Ratigan suggests. NCAA rules in sports...
edit on 15-4-2012 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
This guys 100% tax rate for earnings beyond $370,000 is brilliant. Although I think 100% is pushing it, people can live VERY luxuriously off of 370k a year. Of course how that money is spent is another problem, and how the rich will react to such taxes is fairly predictable, but it's a step in the right direction. Limitless capitalism is a monster which the world could do without.

For those who have not realized, the rich can easily leave a country if they feel their taxes are too high. This becomes problematic when deciding whether to raise taxes or cut them for the wealthy. Raising taxes generates more money, obviously, but if taxes are too oppressive and the rich find it more feasible to live elsewhere than pay such taxes, the government will make no money from them. If taxes are very lax, the wealthy will flock to them because they would rather pay less, thus generating more income for the government. It should also be said that when the rich have more money to spend, they can spend more money bribing congress; everyone wins, except for the middle class and the poor.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


10 million creates too high of a gap, and there really are not that many people making over 10 million a year.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
This guys 100% tax rate for earnings beyond $370,000 is brilliant. Although I think 100% is pushing it, people can live VERY luxuriously off of 370k a year. Of course how that money is spent is another problem, and how the rich will react to such taxes is fairly predictable, but it's a step in the right direction. Limitless capitalism is a monster which the world could do without.


I do not really care much about taxation on the rich, although I am not a big fan of it. Capitalism is a monster the world can do without, same with Socialism. People should become wealthy because of successful efforts in aiding the growth of their nation and its citizens or for owning land where they take generous care of their laborers.


For those who have not realized, the rich can easily leave a country if they feel their taxes are too high. This becomes problematic when deciding whether to raise taxes or cut them for the wealthy. Raising taxes generates more money, obviously, but if taxes are too oppressive and the rich find it more feasible to live elsewhere than pay such taxes, the government will make no money from them. If taxes are very lax, the wealthy will flock to them because they would rather pay less, thus generating more income for the government. It should also be said that when the rich have more money to spend, they can spend more money bribing congress; everyone wins, except for the middle class and the poor.


Why is it that people view nations as interchangeable as a pair of socks? ‘Oh these socks are not the right color for me; I will wear the other ones’. A country should be more than a place you squat in until some better place opens up. It is the ancestral attachment of men to land consummated with the spilling of blood in its defense. I do not believe in a propositional nation where you are a citizen so long as you accept positions A and B. It has nothing to do with some philosophical principles espoused by a privileged few or a diluted many.

For all this talk among Leftists about the evil rich I see them peddling the same garbage big corp and bankers love to hear. Maybe that is because socialism is the inversion of capitalism, both owned by the rich for the rich only different with how they are going to manipulate a society into handing over its resources.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by aching_knuckles

I have two reasons behind my stance:
  • Fairness: corporate earnings as it is now are taxed twice. Corporations are not people; they are groups of people working together. The present system taxes them once when they make the money and again when they divide it up. I say tax should be charged once, not twice.

  • The post I responded to was a list of the major corporations who payed less than zero tax already under the present system, and it read like a who's who of big business. The advantage big business has right now is that they hire accountants and tax attorneys to show them how to do this while smaller businesses can't afford to do so and have to pay tax. That raises their operating costs and makes it that much harder for them to compete with large corporations.

    By removing the corporate tax, we ensure that no business will ever owe negative taxes. We also remove a hindrance to smaller companies competing with larger ones and thus allow the market to more freely regulate itself. It's not as good as enforcing anti-trust laws, but it is a step in the right direction.

TheRedneck

edit on 4/15/2012 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)


You are correct that there is double taxation. In order to eliminate the double taxation issue, distribute all profits to shareholders and let the shareholders pay the taxes each year. If the company needs those amounts to be reinvested offer shareholders a discounted reinvestment plan. It would throw Wall Street for a serious loop but is much more fair than the current system. I would rather the tax falls on the individual shareholder than on the corporation.

Alternately, you could replace the corporate wealth tax cited in my previous proposal with a corporate sales tax. tax corporations a small percentage of sales (2-4%) regardless of levels of profit. Even if they aren't making money they are likely using resources and infrastructure provided by the taxpayer. Between the wealth tax and the corporate sales tax we should be able to raise enough money to run the governement with no disincentives to the economy.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaryStillToe

Originally posted by TheRedneck


If we tax wealth and not income, what is to stop someone from making millions or billions and then renouncing their citizenship and moving to another country that does not tax wealth?

Instead, it's better to address the problem upfront at the start. Taxing income would force those pursuing great amounts of wealth to be more productive in their communities over longer periods of time. You are not going to be rich for your whole life by having a one time annual income of $2M. A person who wants to be wealthy would need to amass income consistently over a number of years. This would benefit society because the people who run businesses would need to adopt policies and practices that are aimed at creating long-term success. It would result in greater economic stability.


If we went to taxing wealth we would need to move to a more open financial reporting model with full cooperation internationally. Note that I did include the thought that all the world's goverment would have enough money, so international cooperation is a given in my example. No hiding your wealth. Which government gets what is something that would have to be worked out.

The limits on annual income is problematic because in many circumstances acheivement is made in leaps and bounds. Great discoveries deserve great compensation. Not everyone hits gold more than once.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist

I'm sorry; there appears to me to be something wrong with my computer... you see, I go back and read my posts, and then read yours and it is blatantly apparent we are reading different things.


If the 1k didn't go towards interest on bogus loans, you'd have more money in play by not being tolled, registered, and gassed to your grave. Translates into the burden of sales tax too. Moreover, the top tier syndicate transfers funds outside our jurisdiction while corporate shields provide their immunity. A - no corporate tax structure - would lead to the worse off situation of legal maneuvers ranging from patent attorneys to M&A's. Are you honestly trying to reason with me? If so, begin with a level dose of common sense.

Agreed on the bogus loans; when have I ever said otherwise? There's that computer problem again...I swear I see posts where I state clearly that nothing will really work until we curb government spending.

But common sense? Here's a dose of common sense for you; I have linked it but since that didn't work, I'll repost the applicable parts:

Originally posted by Americanist

Honeywell
Profits: $4.9 billion
Taxes: -$34 million
Fed Ex
Profits: $3 billion
Taxes: -$23 million
Wells Fargo
Profits: $49.37 billion
Taxes: -$681 million
Boeing
Profits: $9.7 billion
Taxes: -$178 million
Verizon
Profits: $32.5 billion
Taxes: -$951 million
Dupont
Profits: $2.1 billion
Taxes -$72 million
American Electric Power
Profits: $5.89 billion
Taxes -$545 million
General Electric
Profits: $7.7 billion
Taxes: -$4.7 billion

Ironically enough, that post is by you!

Now, I ask you: why are you arguing for this atrocity? Those are negative tax amounts! This is what the corporate tax is allowing, and you claim any suggestion to remove it is not logical because it makes the corporations pay less?

Are we reading the same post? Are you aware negative is less than zero?


Sorry, you don't glaze over loopholes.

No, you close them. The tax system is not a disposable paper plate; you just don't toss it out when you're done with it and get a new one. You fix the problems as they appear.

Also, if we replace the tax system with a flat tax, a value-added tax, or any other tax, income tax will remain in place. In over a half-century I have never seen a single tax repealed by any administration or congress, but I have seen quite a few instituted.


Again, a misconception since the poor man, poor man's mother/ father, and their extended family get slammed as consumers while shopping school supplies and clothing to paying at the pump.

And a lot of that slamming is in the form of hidden taxes. Do you have any idea how much you pay in taxes for gasoline? No, of course you don't, because they are not listed separately on the receipt. Yet you choose to decry the corporations that actually supply the gas and condone the government who does nothing except raise the prices you have to pay.


So no taxes on businesses - equivalent of stripping revenue/ ability to pay yields on government bonds, but yes to a personal income tax footing the interest on central banks loans. I get it.

No, you do not. I support one... one... one... ONE tax on business. You support two!

You also fail to take into account that a thriving economy means more taxes coming in. If you want a thriving economy, people in that economy need money. To get people money, there needs to be jobs. To have jobs, you must have businesses. If you want businesses, you don't run them off.


They've already grown to four major banks, 3-4 major telecom, under a dozen media houses, and a uniform oil and gas industry that spans the globe. Do you know what code for competition is? Lowest bidders and...

Again with the different posts. I have been screaming to enforce anti-trust legislation for years now, including in this thread. That would stop these giant multinational corporations from existing. It would make them illegal, and we did that for a very long time up until about ten years or so ago.

What's wrong with lower bidders? You do the same thing. If you see two identical products at different prices, do you buy the more expensive one? No, of course not! So why is it wrong when businesses do it?


These corporate entities have a major goal in pursuit of maximizing profits.

Duh!

A corporation is a legal agreement entered into by investors for the sole purpose of conducting business, and capable of exercising some rights to allow it to engage in contract law to facilitate that business.

Business: the process of providing a product or service to produce a profit.

(Now, how much does someone want to bet this appears different on some screens than it does on mine?
)

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical

You know, I think I owe you an apology. That last post of yours was an awe-inspiring look at out-of-the-box thinking and I don't believe I replied.

I had honestly never considered a wealth tax, but it makes sense to me. It would assure that corporations would not simply sit on their hands and sock back wealth in investments, because their investments are a part of their estate. They would have to either use those assets to produce income or lose them.

I would say to disqualify stock portfolios from wealth calculations, however, because corporate estate taxes would already be paid by the corporation itself.


You are correct that there is double taxation. In order to eliminate the double taxation issue, distribute all profits to shareholders and let the shareholders pay the taxes each year.

Actually unnecessary IMO. If your estate tax were to replace the income tax, it would be idiotic to keep the wealth invested in a heavier-taxed corporation. Dividends are already paid out typically on a quarterly basis as well; most of the income is paid out already through dividends unless there is a need for expansion.

I thank you for the first sentence quoted above. I was starting to believe that I was the only person left who even knew what a corporation is!


Alternately, you could replace the corporate wealth tax cited in my previous proposal with a corporate sales tax. tax corporations a small percentage of sales (2-4%) regardless of levels of profit.

I still think your initial proposal is superior. Income taxes are typically simply passed onto the consumer (see post above concerning gasoline taxes) whether visible or not. An estate tax would also be passed on, but not as easily.

The only real concern I have about this is the same one I also pointed out in the above post: never has a tax been abolished in my lifetime. As a replacement for income tax, this is an awesome idea; as an addition to the income tax, it sucks (as would any new tax).

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
America should invert it's tax system and increase it's tax brackets.

Start with making all earning under 50K non taxable, this will spur an
influx of spending, stimulate the economy and create a solid basis
for equal taxation. Everyone is subject to the same amount of tax
free money and taxes above that amount will be consistent for anyone
earning above that amount at various increments.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Well blame your state for the second tax not the feds. Florida taxed once as a share holder.

And when it comes to France were you complaining when they were trying to pass the same tea party crap on the EU. Yes they were doing it probly befor the Tea Party ever really got started in the US. Oh but the Tea Party is a grass root thing. My ass they are as global as Koch Industries.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848

Actually I was referring to the double Federal taxation.

If one owns a share of stock, that means one owns a specific portion of the corporation authorizing the stock. If I own 1 share of WalMart and there are 1,000,000 shares outstanding (owned by individuals), then I own 1/1,000,000 of WalMart. That includes any profits they make; I own one dollar out of every $1,000,000 they make.

At the end of the year, WalMart pays corporate income tax on what it makes. Then it sends my portion (which I already own) to me. Now I pay tax on the money sent to me, even though WalMart already paid taxes on it once.

That is double taxation. I did not earn the money by doing a service or selling a product. The money was already mine when it went into the WalMart coffers. They just sent me what was already mine. So why is it taxed twice?

If you want to include the states, then it is taxed four times.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Walmart does not pay taxes on your share. You do. Walmart will pay taxes on property which is done befor profits are split. Then you get a share of the profit and you pay the taxes on it. Property taxes would be state.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848

No, WalMart pays taxes on income. The corporate tax is a tax on income.

The double taxation is taught in every single college-level business course as the cost of doing business. This is no secret. Corporate Taxes on Wiki

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


It worked great for the USSR didn't it??

Surely it will work great for us too!



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Theres many taxes they are paying.

Payroll tax from there employees which are held in a separte bank account until due. Employer pays his half the employee pays there half.

Property tax for the properties they own. Which would fall under over head and be taken out of the profit the company made because they did not really make that money.

Theres also the tax on merchandise in the store shelfs. That must be paid because its not a hiding place for your profit. It must be taxed. This would fall under the retail stores.

Then theres the tax money they collect from shoppers that are collected and placed in a bank account and must be given to the state for sales tax. But they never paid them just collected them.

Then there would be the tax of shares. A lot of large companies buy there own shares back. They own part of the shares. Who ever owns the shares pays taxes on them. They would pay there part of the shares and who ever else owned shares would pay there part.

Then you get into state by state city by city taxes. But most states and cities make deals with larger corporations to earse them. Even when building there stores they would normally pay a fire department taxes street improvement tax if they have to widen roads from two lanes to four becuse of traffic. Side walk taxes. Even school taxes. But the city and state usually wave them in the building process as a way too attract more businesses. Unless your the little guy then your screwed.

And remember that the tax form they fill out and send in stateing how much taxes are owed. They do not pay. The share holders do depend ing on how much their share was.

Nobody pays taxes with this form. Its a ledger for how the taxes were calculated and how the burden should be shared.
www.irs.gov...

The above calculates what the k which is sent to all share holders telling them what they owe.
www.irs.gov...

The share holders then pay there taxes as individuals and include the k form and pay the taxes.

And I did not get into the general liability insurance workmans comp insurance and all the other things that really are a tax on corporations. But all that falls under over head.
edit on 16-4-2012 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Your approach reeks of naivety. Let's forgo corporate taxes because big business utilizes accounting schemes (they still pay for accountants mind you) and negate any additional revenue base the slew of other companies contribute... All in one foul swoop. Furthermore, overhangs weren't permanent the last time I happened to check.

Two thing we can firmly agree on would be closing loopholes and enforcing anti-trust legislation. Again, a flat tax will maintain a revenue base regardless. I'm also fully aware the hidden tax on gas, energy, and communications. I've kept tabs for nearly a decade now. So have you ever run a corporation? You'll find sales tax, payroll tax, SS, franchise... I've actually paid these in the past.




You also fail to take into account that a thriving economy means more taxes coming in. If you want a thriving economy, people in that economy need money. To get people money, there needs to be jobs. To have jobs, you must have businesses. If you want businesses, you don't run them off.


You must be running on lack of sleep. With the advent of 3D printing and full-automation you won't see the same manufacturing lines. Jobs vanish as a result. Corporate entities that spawn the most tech will run off jobs for good... Especially considering our organizational stance in society. Then there's the finance sector which is a siphon. No luck either.




What's wrong with lower bidders? You do the same thing. If you see two identical products at different prices, do you buy the more expensive one? No, of course not! So why is it wrong when businesses do it?


Lowest bidders are the guys spraying chemicals on our food crops that rarely live to see their own grand kids being born. I'd rather end this monstrosity for them. No offense to Walmart and Monsanto.


I appreciate your copy and paste job at the bottom. Perhaps you should try an actual screen capture next. We'll compare...
edit on 16-4-2012 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by MaryStillToe

Actually it would provide a choice to where the money will go because charitable contributions and expenses are deductions from income.

Is there not a cap on the amount of deductions one can take for charity, like there is in the US? Also, in the US, many people use the charity loophole to cheat the tax system anyway, by donating to charities they themselves set up and control (sometimes through use of family members and sometimes through paid associates). So there is a loophole that already exists to allow those who "work the system" to get away with hiding more wealth.


If we tax wealth and not income, what is to stop someone from making millions or billions and then renouncing their citizenship and moving to another country that does not tax wealth?

What is to prevent them from doing just that to skirt the income tax? It is already being done; it is one big reason why so many corporations in the US have moved overseas (and took their jobs with them).

At least with wealth, a large part of which is typically in real estate, that real estate cannot be moved away.

TheRedneck


You made some fair points, but I was also thinking that many of the current laws would need to be tweaked in order to better support this new model.

In the US, there is no limit for charitable deductions made if the non-profit has a qualified status. Even though people can only currently deduct up 50% of their adjusted gross income, the law could be changed to allow for unlimited deductions once you reach the income cap. Also, to curb people from "working the system", it should be required that all non-profits holding over $1M in cash or financial assets undergo a yearly independent audit that is made public. I am not sure, but this would be a good rule to have today.

An income cap would also apply to corporations. Any excess income earned in the host country, would need to be spent in the host country or forfeited to the government. I wouldn't apply the same cap amounts to corporations as individuals, but the caps would provide enough incentive for a company to want to do business.

Also, I don't believe if you put a cap on corporations they simply wouldn't do business. An accountant once told me that millions of dollars in profits is always better than nothing. There are companies with billions in gross revenue that make only $50M in profits (per year) and the owners are still interested in doing business.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   
I m french and about to vote at the end of the week

just so you know the "Melenchon" the OP talks about is not in a position to win...

but Francois Hollande is certainly going to win as the polls show. And this guy said : i m gonna put a 75% tax rate for those above 1 million per year....

So it s happening, hollande is not the third guy but the first one. Our future president...

www.ft.com...




edit on 16/4/12 by estebadia because: (no reason given)

edit on 16/4/12 by estebadia because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join