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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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
Sorry, you don't glaze over loopholes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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