| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Give 'em money, or else
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Give 'em money, or else

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Give 'em money, or else
    Posted: 07 Apr 2011 at 14:31

 

A long standing conservative claim in Canada (and the US and other countries) is that corporate tax cuts are necessary to stimulate growth, jobs, discourage a shift of plant overseas, and generally keep business happy. This report from the Globe and Mail suggests that, over the last decade anyway, this is not the case.

 

A federal election is on in Canada, and in the US, a tired refrain is coming from the Republican Party, reiterating a  view similar to Canada's Conservative Party on this issue. But how much of this is economic theory, and how much is it servicing one's patrons?

 

“….Businesses were widely expected to use the extra money from successive rounds of tax cuts to build factories and offices and buy new machinery and equipment. At one time, they did just that. From 1960 until the early 1990s, corporations invested almost every penny of their after-tax cash flow back into the business.

But the tax cuts appear to have reversed decades of tradition. Investment in equipment and machinery has fallen to 5.5 per cent in 2010 as a share of Canada’s total economic output from 6.8 per cent in 2005 and 7.7 per cent in 2000, The Globe analysis shows…”.

 

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/corporate-tax-cuts-dont-spur-growth-analysis-reveals-as-election-pledges-fly/article1972599/

 

 

 

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2011 at 15:00
Business are far more likely than people to make rational economic decisions, and keeping a relatively low tax rate, and simple tax scheme - especially for small business - probably is advantageous to a certain degree.
They key is to figure out what that degree is. Certainly the benefits aren't linear, so what are they, and what's the best option? I don't know.
 
PS: If you tax rich people highly then any dividends that are paid by companies into peoples savings accounts can be taxed to recoup money that is leaving the company


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 07 Apr 2011 at 15:02
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2011 at 17:59
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Business are far more likely than people to make rational economic decisions
 
LOLLOLLOL.
 
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

and keeping a relatively low tax rate, and simple tax scheme - especially for small business - probably is advantageous to a certain degree.
They key is to figure out what that degree is. Certainly the benefits aren't linear, so what are they, and what's the best option? I don't know.
 
No its not. High taxes on businesses actually drive them to achieve more in profit in order to compensate for the lack of income, if you cut taxes on them such incentive will be lost and corporations. European corporations are taxed much more higher yet business failures their are much more lower than in the US and businesses have a higher profit rate too.
 
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2011 at 21:49
I'm also somewhat amused by the idea that businesses are more likely than people to make rational economic decisions.
 
Who makes the decisions in business other than people? People with exactly the same dominant motives whether they are 'at work' or 'at home'.
 
Tax rates don't matter that much in investment decisions (other than perhaps shifting from one country to another) simply because the taxes apply no matter which way a decision is made. Comparing project A to project B (one of which may be do 'nothiing') is therefore unaffected because no matter when the rate, it will cut both projects' incomes equally.
 
What is much more dominant is the spirit of the age - whether optimistic or pessimistic - the riskiness and the uncertainty (not the same things) of the projects and the decider's degree of risk aversion, the availability of finance and more detailed things like the current cost of equity capital (which links back to the optimism/pessimism range). Most of those things are purely subjective and psychological. 
 
Add to all that inadequate knowledge and faulty prediction and in the end tax rates may have any effect depending on the current Zeitgeist.
 
In the '70s fori instance raising and lowering income taxes were both inflationary, since raising them led to increased demand for salary increases and profit margins (cost push inflation) and therefore prices, while lowering them injected excessive money supply (demand pull inflation). While at other times increasing taxes reduces the money supply (demand failure deflation, and decreasing them leads to increased saving (also demand failure deflation).
 
The difference between the '60s and recent years is that people (and therefore businesses) were happier and more optimistic then.
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 07 Apr 2011 at 21:50
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5080
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 00:46
In the last generation, "business," i.e. the interests running them, has become interested in fewer things.  Essentially those things are:

1)  Management's compensation.

2)  Management's compensation.

3)  Management's compensation.

The interests of "stakeholders" goes little further than the stock price when it is time for management to manipulate it's options.

Management does not even have to be much concerned any longer about performance since risk is disproportionately assumed by the public fisc, and poor performance is rewarded by ever increasing bonus compensation.  No worries.




Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11686
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 01:20
For one, lowering taxes is mighty attractive to doing business, but it is not the be all end all. We pay up to 35% (corporate) tax in the US and that is high for too many. Europeans and Canada probably pay much more income tax though. Cap Van, what business has done in lean times (the W. Bush years) was to streamline by getting rid of the fat as they lost contracts. Getting rid of too many unnecessary workers from both hourly and salaried circles was the goal otherwise they would have to close shop or sell to a competitor. Once streamlined business became more efficient with less overhead but also less gross income. That wasn't helped that the world economy took a nose dive in 2008 either. Less contracts meant less buying power, less income, but more unemployment. Now that the TARP fund kicked in for US banks business loans and lines of credit have been stabilized yet business kept thin. Kept the money for investments. Kept the money for, as Pike mentions, Management Compensation. I would add Ownership Compensation to that even more so. Call it hoarding or whatever, the jobs are rarely trickling back in. Banks are leery to give out loans, and as industry is going abroad the locals have nothing to look forward to other than congress approving the latest round of unemployment checks. 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 01:24
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

In the last generation, "business," i.e. the interests running them, has become interested in fewer things.  Essentially those things are:

1)  Management's compensation.

2)  Management's compensation.

3)  Management's compensation.
Smile
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 01:34
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

For one, lowering taxes is mighty attractive to doing business,
But it makes no difference to decision-making. unless the rates are different in different business areas.
Quote
but it is not the be all end all. We pay up to 35% (corporate) tax in the US and that is high for too many.
Luxembourg is 37% national plus local tax on companies. Plus a wealth tax. Doesn't stop people setting up businesses here, especially European heaquarters. What attracts them more than tax rates dissuade them are regulatory aspects and of course bankng privacy, and some other things the Chamber of Commerce would probably like to point out to you.
Quote
Europeans and Canada probably pay much more income tax though. Cap Van, what business has done in lean times (the W. Bush years) was to streamline by getting rid of the fat as they lost contracts. Getting rid of too many unnecessary workers from both hourly and salaried circles was the goal otherwise they would have to close shop or sell to a competitor. Once streamlined business became more efficient with less overhead but also less gross income. That wasn't helped that the world economy took a nose dive in 2008 either. Less contracts meant less buying power, less income, but more unemployment. Now that the TARP fund kicked in for US banks business loans and lines of credit have been stabilized yet business kept thin. Kept the money for investments. Kept the money for, as Pike mentions, Management Compensation. I would add Ownership Compensation to that even more so. Call it hoarding or whatever, the jobs are rarely trickling back in. Banks are leery to give out loans, and as industry is going abroad the locals have nothing to look forward to other than congress approving the latest round of unemployment checks. 
What you're talking about there are the symptoms: they happened, but they don't get to the cause. Why was it any different in other periods? How do you figure 'irrational exuberance' in there and its counterpart 'irrational depression'? Bipolar disorder?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11686
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 02:07
The cause? Another big question G. You are keeping me on my toes mind you.

Slumps aside and  not taking into the equation of losing market share on regular level depending on the type of industry, are you also assuming that buyers have overspent and that hedge funds couldn't be paid back? OK, that has something to do with it. But why did buyers buy homes they could afford at one time but then later couldn't?


Edited by Seko - 08 Apr 2011 at 02:08
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 02:27
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

For one, lowering taxes is mighty attractive to doing business, but it is not the be all end all. We pay up to 35% (corporate) tax in the US and that is high for too many. 
 
 
Not Quite. The nominal rate is 35% but if I am not mistaken the effective rate (after all deductables etc.) is around 15% and if you are GE its actually -33%LOL. Not to mention the fact that you are only taxed after a certain number of years after your business is established. 
 
What makes companies set up business in a country is only partly based on tax rates as Graham pointed out. Other important factors are the hidden cost of business like real estate prices (a huge factor), privacy laws, regulations and of course the legal code. As I understand it (from an old report I read I think) Tort law is a big problem in the US and large companies use aggressive legal tactics to bankrupt the competetion.
 
The targeted market also plays a role. If your business is direct at europe why put your corporate HQ in Bermuda?
 
 
 
Al-Jassas
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 06:21
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

The cause? Another big question G. You are keeping me on my toes mind you.

Slumps aside and  not taking into the equation of losing market share on regular level depending on the type of industry, are you also assuming that buyers have overspent and that hedge funds couldn't be paid back? OK, that has something to do with it. But why did buyers buy homes they could afford at one time but then later couldn't?
 
Because when they bought (and, even worse, refinanced) they were working and when they defaulted they weren't. If they were employed they weren't in the same job and /or were earning less money. Nationwide U6 unemployment in the US has been pushing 20% for some time: if a sixth of your mortgage payers are unemployed or working short time and at lower wages, mortgages are going to crumble everywhere. And monetary demand is going to slump, not because of being overspent but because of inadequate income.
 
Basically, the net return to labour in the US is insufficient to sustain demand creating an oversupply situation thus launching the deflationary cycle. This is exaggerated of course by inadequate state provision to break the spiral (one indicator of which incidentally is the gap between U3 and U6 unemployment - i.e. the number of unemployed not receiving benefits).
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11686
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 06:33
That ^ , my friend, is a good answer and the correct one. Employment/unemployment has everything to do with the housing crises. I agree that insufficient demand also effects deflation.

Al J. tort reform is always talked about but very little is enacted. That is a whole other ball of wax and one that rightly needs more attention.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 06:49
I think the main problem with the tort situation in the US lies in the massive amounts of 'punitive damages' inflicted on top of the compensation for harm done. There's no sensible reason why punitive damages (which are essentially a kind of fine for wrongdoing) should be paid to the plaintiff or the plaintiff's lawyers, rather than directly to the state. And no real reason for them being so high nor for them to be inflicted on a civil basis of balance of evidence rather than a criminal basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
 
Thus in Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants ignoriing the medical details, and assuming Liebeck actually did suffer $200,000 in real damages, there is no real justification for paying her ad her lawyers the $2.7 million in punitive damages. The punitive damages should (a) be paid to the government as a fine and (b) only be awarded as the result of a criminal trial of McDonalds, not spun off of a civil trial.
 
However with regard to the original topic, tort law in the US hasn't changed in recent years: it was the same in the '60s as now.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 07:14
The irony of it all...if in American political lingo collectivism is a dirty word and meriting contempt, how then does its synonym, corporatism, escape disdain? Of course one could be a total cynic here and just mutter what was the favored topic the last time this hysteria over taxation took hold: the 1990s and the Flat Tax proponents.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 07:53
"the 1990s and the Flat Tax proponents."

Of which I am one! But, I am sure that you thought, "Of course.?"
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5080
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 11:53
The "Flat Tax" is an unrealistic denial of the political reality in the US that there are entire industries, and consequently political interests, that rely on the existing tax code and its complexities to profit handsomely.

CPA firms; tax law practices, the strategic planning departments of the largest corporations, and the IRS itself are all established and deeply vested interests.  They will prevent, through political influence, any real change in the tax code that works against their interests.

Nearly all corporate, and individual, financial decisions have come to be determined, and critically impacted, by the financial effects of the IRS tax code.  A "Flat Tax" would eliminate complexity in the Code; in the administration of the Code, and in the employment of those involved in administering, and in interpreting, the Code.

 Need more be said? 




Edited by pikeshot1600 - 08 Apr 2011 at 12:10
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 14:26
Well if the subject is broached in the language of reform then the only body that has to undergo diagnosis is the IRS Code itself. Accepting government as a modern-day version of Topsy and swallowing the premise that "it jus' grows" is absurd. Otherwise, what is left other than a grotesque caricature of Goya's fantasmagora, "Saturn Devouring His Children".
 
All else is misdirection...but hey that's politics!


Edited by drgonzaga - 09 Apr 2011 at 01:12
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 15:00
Today China is eagerly investing in resource industries in Canada, in order to promote some stability in their industrial future. The corporate tax rate today is 16.5%, and on its way down to 15%, if the Conservatives have their way. This is a substantial drop from previous years. If the rates had held up, what are the odds that Chinese economists would have said: Hmmm, 20%, hell, we're not paying that! Tell them were to stick their tar sands! The clamour for resources has grown at the same time that corporate rates have been dropping.
 
To Iggy's (Michael Ignatieff, oppostion leader) favour, he has dared to tap around, with a metal stick, in the vicinity of the subway's third rail. In other words, he has dared to suggest that corporate taxes don't need to keep declining, and may even be bumped up a couple of notches, without fooling with Armageddon. Good on 'em.
 
I think with a flat tax, there are two types of people that favour it. The uber-rich, who feel that their money is theirs, and all others can keep their grubby paws off it; and those that slept through their high school math classes, and hence see some logical merit in the proposal.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 21:22
I've yetto see any clear, consistent thinking among 'flat tax' proposers. I don't even know what is being meant by 'flat' - everybody pays the same percentage, which is absurd, or everybody pays the same amount, which is even more absurd.
 
Does 'flat' include physical persons and legal persons (corporations)?  Does  it mean no tax breaks for industries, so the oil companies pay the same rate (or same amount) as film companies and banks?
 
Or what? Where is the logic supposed to stop?
 
Even in the 18th century Bernouilli would have pointed out that if anything needs to be equalised then it should be the utility of the amount, not the amount or the percentage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_paradox#Expected_utility_theory
 
What is certainly clear is that the US tax codes should be cleaned up to get rid of all the complex rules for deductions for this that and the other.
 
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 08 Apr 2011 at 21:24
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Apr 2011 at 07:49
The flat tax is for individual earners. I would stop all federal taxes upon corporations, as well as small business with thirty or more employes, perhaps a sliding employee number scale could be used?

This would of course eliminate "most" all tax deductions for most every one and every corporation also. Employers already match the employee contribution to Social Security.

Tax deferred retirement plans for employees, via their contributions, whould of course be deferred, and employer contributions towards such plans would be just about the only tax break allowed.

Of course, I am against all Federal Income Taxes upon business! And, perhaps I could well consider a special Income Tax rate for "bonus" pay, for some employees, with deferred compensation or stock options severely limited.

I am also against across the board per-centage raises, that is where evey employee receives say a 5% raise. This type of raise, which has been in use by the Federal Gov., for over 50 years, is as much the cause of the inflation of higher paid employees over the lessor.

Thus a 5% raise on an employee making $200,000 per annum, is unfairly higher than that same 5% raise given to another employee making $50,000 per annum. Thus in spendable income it is $10,000 versus $2,500.00, which does, indeed, make the "Rich, Richer!"

I would rather suggest that someone be made to determine a ratio from the top wage earner to the lowest, be sat at some fixed ratio, and kept as such based in laws. Thus if the highest paide wage earner makes twenty times as much as the lowest, then that is the ratio that has to be kept into perpetuity. It is the ratio that needs to be kept, or the conditions now mentioned by many to the chagrin of others (the rich get richer) will always be the case.

Just some of my ideas.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Apr 2011 at 19:46
So if I incorporate myself and work for the resultant company for free, but it pays all the expenses I incur, nobody pays taxes because the company is tax-exempt and I don't have any income?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5080
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Apr 2011 at 01:36
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

So if I incorporate myself and work for the resultant company for free, but it pays all the expenses I incur, nobody pays taxes because the company is tax-exempt and I don't have any income?


It may not be as absurd as you think.  LOL   It may be an entirely new CPA career path!

We traded actuary stories IIRC.  There was an enrolled actuary I knew who devised a pension plan, perfectly legal, that allowed a self employed person to put every dollar he made into a pension plan tax deferred.  (The obvious problem was that he would have no money on which to live.)


Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Apr 2011 at 07:41
Actually a lot of farmers in the USA have been doing similar things for years. I have a very good friend whose brother is a large farmer in N. Minnesota and Dakota, and who, with a confidant face can point out to any reported who asks, answer that he and his family live only upon a paid income of perhaps $40,000 per annum. But, since he is also the CEO of a company, he does get some untaxable income, that exists only within the companies taxes. Thus, since he uses four wheel drive vehicles to work his lands, the company owns them, and not him, and since he lives in an area of great freezes and snowfalls, he also has at his beck and call the Company Owned snow mobiles, and other devices (such as boats), which are also at the beck and call of him and his family, and the list goes on and on.

Of course, these same items are deductable from his company's taxes, as is the use of his small farms that grow goods used by both his family and other workers that are employed by his corporation.

What it comes down to, is the fact that legally he and his family do not own much of anything. The corporation owns and controls his home, his vehicles, his food costs, his energy usage, etc.!

I could get him to explain it too you all, but perhaps it might well be over all of our heads?\

But, for many years the above man, who is not that all unusual, only pays himself in "Play money", that is enough to take the three months of vacations every year, travel a lot, attend trade shows (but these are paid for out of the company funds), etc.

It is merely "fun monies."

He is probably worth a few million dollars at least. But, is he in the catagory of "rich" as Al Gore, or Bill Clinton or President Obama would see him?

Edited by opuslola - 10 Apr 2011 at 07:52
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Apr 2011 at 02:05

I don't see why it should be 'over all of our heads'.

Since I'm no longer economically active I recently closed down my company in Luxembourg which I set up back in 1987 with imilar intentions. There are a whole number of things that are tax-deductible here (and in most places) for companies but not for individuals (for instance buying books and software and hardware). Moreover in Luxembourg but probably not elsewhere, dividends are taxed at source at a lower rate than the standard income rate.
 
Sometimes you want to do it the other way around: in the UK in the late '70s I had a long battle, but won in the end, on my claim that although I was managing director of the company I was with then, I was not employed by the company.
 
Point is that all these are things that a clear and efficient tax code wouldn't allow.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Apr 2011 at 10:25
And, yet you made these comments;
"So if I incorporate myself and work for the resultant company for free, but it pays all the expenses I incur, nobody pays taxes because the company is tax-exempt and I don't have any income?"

And from my post you derived the above?

I just do not see why? You are, as usual, being overly simplistic. And may not really be able to "see the Big Picture."

As, it seems, was I, during a great deal of my employment within the Treasury Department of the USA.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Apr 2011 at 21:29
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

And, yet you made these comments;
"So if I incorporate myself and work for the resultant company for free, but it pays all the expenses I incur, nobody pays taxes because the company is tax-exempt and I don't have any income?"

And from my post you derived the above?
From your original post, yes. You were suggesting that it should be, and you gave an example of how it is, for some obscure reason thinking there was anything unusual about it, and stating it would be 'over the heads' of the rest of us.
 
So I gave you a couple of other examples of how the system can be played with, in Britain and Luxembourg.
 
But the point of my posts was that it should not be like that. And the US tax code (and others) wouold be improved by removing such loopholes, not increasing them the way you want to do.
Quote
I just do not see why? You are, as usual, being overly simplistic. And may not really be able to "see the Big Picture."

As, it seems, was I, during a great deal of my employment within the Treasury Department of the USA.
Which I understood you to say was with the secret service. But even if it wasn't, the US Treasury is hardly the place to find someone with any idea of increasing the effectiveness and simplicity of US taxes.


Edited by gcle2003 - 11 Apr 2011 at 21:31
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Apr 2011 at 01:06
In a moment of perverse joy haloed by evil intent, I shall underscore the problem in question by referencing the Dark Lords of the Numerology--
 
 
 
 
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2011 at 16:12
Of course "evil intent" would seem almost normal for you drgonzaga! But you dare to wear a "halo" at the same time?

Perverse is the word, my dear Sir.

As regards the response from Graham avove, he also perversly changed the meaning of my post, by suggesting that I would support such "loop-holes", which is something I never suggested. It is just another case of the "double-team" of Luxembourg Graham and the Doctor of Evil, versus a poor Mississippi boy, with but not a gram of education.

Shame, shame Masters!

My use of the words "Big Picture" were but those told to me by my less educated superiors in the office. That is those who did not hold any college degree of any kind.

They were all from California, and New York, etc.! Which is, in my opinion, if my opinion means anything at all, is the real symbol of the term "Good old boys!"

Edited by opuslola - 15 Apr 2011 at 16:18
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Apr 2011 at 02:40
If we need evidence of trolling the posts here are damning! So which is it, Opushaha, are you a retired FBI agent, a retired Treasury official, or just a plain retired Federal pencil pusher with too much free time on your hands and a full liquor cabinet? Perhaps you should be careful while spamming the PM boxes of members.

Edited by drgonzaga - 16 Apr 2011 at 02:45
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Apr 2011 at 08:39
Retired Customs Special Agent sir. And, if i might well politely ask, just what good is the PM box, if a message posted there is called spam.

My earnest regards to you and to Graham,
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.