Why not cut this to bare essentials? Eliminate all corporate and personal taxes altogether. Fund everything with import tariffs.
Should corporations pay tax?
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
"The Robin Hood Tax"
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45580928
But
"The Robin Hood Tax Wonât Work"
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45583134
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45580928
But
"The Robin Hood Tax Wonât Work"
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45583134
Tax Benefits From Options as Windfall for Businesses
"...Thanks to a quirk in tax law, companies can claim a tax deduction in future years that is much bigger than the value of the stock options when they were granted to executives. This tax break will deprive the federal government of tens of billions of dollars in revenue over the next decade. And it is one of the many obscure provisions buried in the tax code that together enable most American companies to pay far less than the top corporate tax rate of 35 percent â in some cases, virtually nothing even in very profitable years...."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45824573
"...Thanks to a quirk in tax law, companies can claim a tax deduction in future years that is much bigger than the value of the stock options when they were granted to executives. This tax break will deprive the federal government of tens of billions of dollars in revenue over the next decade. And it is one of the many obscure provisions buried in the tax code that together enable most American companies to pay far less than the top corporate tax rate of 35 percent â in some cases, virtually nothing even in very profitable years...."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45824573
mmmm.......erinQuote from nitro:
<object id="cnbcplayer" height="380" width="400" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0" >
<param name="type" value="application/x-shockwave-flash"/>
<param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"/>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"/>
<param name="quality" value="best"/>
<param name="scale" value="noscale" />
<param name="wmode" value="transparent"/>
<param name="bgcolor" value="#000000"/>
<param name="salign" value="lt"/>
<param name="movie" value="http://plus.cnbc.com/rssvideosearch/action/player/id/3000012451/code/cnbcplayershare"/>
<embed name="cnbcplayer" PLUGINSPAGE="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" height="380" width="400" quality="best" wmode="transparent" scale="noscale" salign="lt" src="http://plus.cnbc.com/rssvideosearch/action/player/id/3000012451/code/cnbcplayershare" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" />
</object>
Was it really loop holes or did they make hardly any new money?
Quote from tenthousandmen:
mmmm.......erin
Was it really loop holes or did they make hardly any new money?
Likely a ruse.
Companies would say, "let us bring our profits home without tax and we'll use that money for hiring"... then NOT do so.
IF "corporate tax" is a component of "all taxes collected", then it should be applied uniformly... regardless of "bringing profits onshore" or not.
Current American tax policy is BULLSHIT AND SHAM... just like DHS... they screen/grope like perverts while leaving the Southern border open to the unrestrained filtration of Islamic terrorists.
Is this the fucking Twilight Zone, or what?
(While I'm at it.... Odumbo proposes raising the tax on dividends to 45%... and that's AFTER corporations have already paid up to 35% on earnings. Are you kidding me? This means government can receive, in taxes, up to 64% of the corporation's earnings. WTF would anyone invest in stocks if the government has first claim on 64% of the earnings? Odumbo is Hell-bent on destroying America... as he is really an ISLAMIC TERRORIST OF THE HIGHEST ORDER.... his tax policy is just one more "brick in the wall".)
Nitro, I just have to comment on this Blinder article. I don't believe I've ever read a piece so pointless as this. It's pointed out correctly that the complexity in our tax code comes from the many rules for figuring out taxable income, but then Blinder wastes our time illustrating how easy it is to figure one's taxes, once you know your taxable income of course. What is the point of this!
As we all know, most Americans who have only one source of income reported to them on a single W-2 should have no problem completing their tax return (though some still do). But consider a sizable minority with income from more than one source that does not get reported on a W-2. This might, for example, include: investment and trading income of different types, business income, royalty income on oil or gas, non-passive rental income, depreciable assets in several different classes all bought at different times, real estate transactions, casualty losses, foreign income, etc. -- with any combination of the above you must navigate a maze of rules with the potential for a real tax nightmare.
A flat tax would be welcome to individuals with complex returns. So how non-progressive would a flat tax be? If you compensate for basic living expenses which would include housing, food, energy, medical and dental care -- as proposed -- you get a progressive result so long as the compensation is capped at reasonably low level. The poor and minimum wage worker would still pay no net consumption tax, while the wealthy will spend well above the cap amounts in most cases and thus pay the highest amounts of tax, with the middle class in between. That is a form of progressiveness. Granted you would not be taxing the wealthy at any higher rate than the middle class, so in that sense, a flat tax is not progressive -- but on the other hand it is progressive in the sense that there is no longer a penalty for hard work and accomplishment. And to those who insist that non-escalating rates for wealthier individuals is a fatal flaw of the flat tax, I suggest that a consumption tax can be implemented at more than one rate, a higher rate on luxury items for example.
Besides the advantage of simplicity, and capture of taxes from the underground cash economy that now escapes taxation, a flat tax provides lower compliance and administrative costs.
An issue that I haven't seen addressed to a satisfactory extent by the flat tax advocates is how to handle entitlements, I assume it is desirable to continue entitlements. Not to. would be a huge mistake.
If the U.S. could implement a flat tax and at the same time bring its military and medical costs down to fall in line with those of other developed nations, that would be Heaven, and the U.S. could look forward to another prosperous century led again by a growing middle class.
What is the real appeal of a flat tax. Is it lower tax rates in general (and it's uncertain that a flat tax can give us that), or is it tax simplification and relief from the nightmare that is the U.S. tax system? I think it is more the latter. So what is important is tax method rather than whether the tax is flat or not. The flat taxers are really talking mostly about changing the method from income tax to consumption tax. We can have a flat tax and keep our present unworkable, inane, ridiculous, absurd tax system, or we can become enlightened and change the method of taxing to something far simpler, easier to enforce, and far more fair. Why can't we do this and why won't we do this? The answer is obvious when you think about it. It is because the U.S. Does Not Have Majority Rule. There are many recent examples that prove that to be the case. In each case, a majority of the public wants one thing, but we persist in doing another. This is circumstantial proof that we do not have majority rule. I don't no for sure what we do have, but it seems to be rule by those with the most money. However unsatisfactory in the twenty-first century, that is consistent with the founding father's intent.
Tear up the Constitution and burn it! Start over with something appropriate to the twenty-first century.
Tear up the Constitution and burn it! Start over with something appropriate to the twenty-first century.