• Trump and Clintons along with hundreds of thousands of other companies linked to Deleware tax haven
    66 replies, posted
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50199854]that's income tax. Delaware charges a franchise tax[/QUOTE] which is a fraction of the tax a company would have paid if they were paying income tax the maximum a company has to pay in franchise tax is 180 million, far short of the "35"% rate a fortune 500 company should pay
[QUOTE=Sableye;50199861]which is a fraction of the tax a company would have paid if they were paying income tax the maximum a company has to pay in franchise tax is 180 million, far short of the "35"% rate a fortune 500 company should pay[/QUOTE] yeah thats the whole point
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50199876]yeah thats the whole point[/QUOTE] they're paying pennies on the dollar because they've lobbied for 0 income tax, while everybody else has an income tax
[QUOTE=Sableye;50199902]they're paying pennies on the dollar because they've lobbied for 0 income tax, while everybody else has an income tax[/QUOTE] I don't see how you can interpret the state has the victim here. Those mean lobbyists didn't force them into this, they wanted it.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;50199155]Only an idiot would work his ass off just to pay boatloads of income tax then give the rest away to the poor, if you expect billionaires to just donate their fortunes I think you're not being realistic. Running for president as a billionaire could give you a chance at enacting real permanent change though.[/QUOTE] Except the poor are most likely working harder to just survive, so your point is moot.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;50199925]Except the poor are most likely working harder to just survive, so your point is moot.[/QUOTE] I don't think rich people don't work hard, they just do work differently. But regardless, it does not matter who works harder or not.. If you make more money you need to be taxed more. Simple as that.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50199920]I don't see how you can interpret the state has the victim here. Those mean lobbyists didn't force them into this, they wanted it.[/QUOTE] Who here is actually saying the state is a victim? You're just using that as a convenient excuse to avoid discussing the fact that this is still wrong regardless of who's responsible. [QUOTE=MR-X;50200483]I don't think rich people don't work hard, they just do work differently. But regardless, it does not matter who works harder or not..[/QUOTE] The point is that the rich can afford to work less hard since their economic well-being isn't at stake. A poor person often can't even afford to call in sick to work for even a single day.
[QUOTE=Anti Christ;50199677]man, imagine how much better our national infrastructure would be if all that money was being taxed properly, and we didnt have a bunch of "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" defending the actual millionaires. i can only imagine that maybe our schools would be better, or maybe our highways wouldnt be falling apart. maybe we'd even have national healthcare. god knows what kind of good could be done, rather than just having a giant pile of money sitting there doing [I]literally nothing[/I].[/QUOTE] you have it all wrong. Im not a "temporarily embarrassed millionaire." I defend tax havens because I think people are entitled to a majority of their labor
[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50201318]I think people are entitled to a majority of [b]their labor[/b][/QUOTE] It's exactly for this reason that tax havens are bad, because the actual people who do the labor to make these people billionaires have to pick up their slack when they exploit tax loopholes.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;50201358]It's exactly for this reason that tax havens are bad, because the actual people who do the labor to make these people billionaires have to pick up their slack.[/QUOTE] what youre bringing up here, either because you actually believe it or because youve been tricked into believing it, is known as the "labor theory of value" , which holds that the value of something is determined by labor and not the end users enjoyment. this is not a philosophy compatible with the real world. billionaires make more money because their time is simply worth more than a low skill worker, even if you believe that they do substantially less work than a low skill worker
[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50201373]what youre bringing up here, either because you actually believe it or because youve been tricked into believing it, is known as the "labor theory of value" , which holds that the value of something is determined by labor and not the end users enjoyment. this is not a philosophy compatible with the real world. billionaires make more money because their time is simply worth more than a low skill worker, even if you believe that they do substantially less work than a low skill worker[/QUOTE] So the low skill workers who earn those billionaires their fortunes, they should be paying the bulk of their hard earned money instead because as you say, rich people are worth more value so we shouldn't harm them with taxes? You're the one disconnected from reality here. Billionaires deserve their money but they also got their money because of society. You're the type of libertarian who doesn't believe in the basis of the social contract but still wants the benefits of society. It's not how it works. Billionaires don't get the protection of a secure state and economy that allows them to prosper without paying their fair share Why are you so eager to get fucked by people who truly don't care about you?
[QUOTE=Alice3173;50200601]Who here is actually saying the state is a victim? You're just using that as a convenient excuse to avoid discussing the fact that this is still wrong regardless of who's responsible. The point is that the rich can afford to work less hard since their economic well-being isn't at stake. A poor person often can't even afford to call in sick to work for even a single day.[/QUOTE] Getting mad at the people using the loophole won't solve it when the state is the one perpetuating it for its own gains.
[QUOTE=MR-X;50200483]I don't think rich people don't work hard, they just do work differently. But regardless, it does not matter who works harder or not.. If you make more money you need to be taxed more. Simple as that.[/QUOTE] i rather sit in an meeting all day getting paid 500K a year than break my back all day for 15K
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50201679]So the low skill workers who earn those billionaires their fortunes, they should be paying the bulk of their hard earned money instead because as you say, rich people are worth more value so we shouldn't harm them with taxes? You're the one disconnected from reality here. Billionaires deserve their money but they also got their money because of society. You're the type of libertarian who doesn't believe in the basis of the social contract but still wants the benefits of society. It's not how it works. Billionaires don't get the protection of a secure state and economy that allows them to prosper without paying their fair share Why are you so eager to get fucked by people who truly don't care about you?[/QUOTE] And how do you determine what is their "fair share"?
[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50201373]what youre bringing up here, either because you actually believe it or because youve been tricked into believing it, is known as the "labor theory of value" , which holds that the value of something is determined by labor and not the end users enjoyment. this is not a philosophy compatible with the real world. billionaires make more money because their time is simply worth more than a low skill worker, even if you believe that they do substantially less work than a low skill worker[/QUOTE] I absolutely agree that their time is much more valuable and worth more, but as long as their workers can't skimp off paying their share of taxes, neither should they. It's not a question of compensation for time/effort, but that when they don't pay the taxes they're supposed too, it falls onto the lower classes to pick up the slack in taxes when they are the ones least able to afford to do so.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50201802]And how do you determine what is their "fair share"?[/QUOTE] can we fund the social services people need yes/no -yes, then the tax rate is fine -no, then raise taxes its not rocket science, we had a fine tax code for 70 years before someone came up with the idea that rich people should pay less taxes and the economy would get better, we know this to be false today yet we have 1 major political party dedicated to it, and another one that doesn't really care either way.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50201679]So the low skill workers who earn those billionaires their fortunes, they should be paying the bulk of their hard earned money instead because as you say, rich people are worth more value so we shouldn't harm them with taxes? You're the one disconnected from reality here. Billionaires deserve their money but they also got their money because of society. You're the type of libertarian who doesn't believe in the basis of the social contract but still wants the benefits of society. It's not how it works. Billionaires don't get the protection of a secure state and economy that allows them to prosper without paying their fair share Why are you so eager to get fucked by people who truly don't care about you?[/QUOTE] for the sake of any bystanders im going to entertain your fallacious post even though its too emotionally charged to be a good argument 1. earn those billionaires their fortunes? how? if i work in a factory, im not paying for the equipment or assuming any risk, im being compensated for my time. the people who make the real money have put forth risk and their life (in the form of time spent earning money) in order to make a profit. if you raise the taxes on the rich too much, you're disincentivizing people who potentially would have started to produce. 2. your blatant guess as to what kind of libertarian i am is both amusing and irrelevant. you are also apparently beyond certain that without a large state, nobody would be rich. can i get tomorrows lottery numbers please? 3. i cant think of any time in my life wherein i was forcefully screwed over by a private actor. everytime i was provided subpar service, it was always during a transaction i voluntarily entered in to. the state however can screw me over any time they feel like it because almost no action with the state is voluntary and before you go "LOL ANARCHO CAPITALIST HERE!!!" i dont have a problem with paying taxes, nor do i have a problem with a small government. i do have a problem with forcing the rich to have a higher tax burden out of feelings of claas envy.
It could also be thought that poor people aren't capable of paying the full tax rate. Rather than the rich pay more taxes than the poor because they are richer. Doesn't have to be some weird envy thing.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50201679]So the low skill workers who earn those billionaires their fortunes, they should be paying the bulk of their hard earned money instead because as you say, rich people are worth more value so we shouldn't harm them with taxes? You're the one disconnected from reality here. Billionaires deserve their money but they also got their money because of society. You're the type of libertarian who doesn't believe in the basis of the social contract but still wants the benefits of society. It's not how it works. Billionaires don't get the protection of a secure state and economy that allows them to prosper without paying their fair share Why are you so eager to get fucked by people who truly don't care about you?[/QUOTE] You can be a billionaire and still make shit for income, and thus be in a lower tax bracket. Billionaire is a measure of wealth, not how much money you have sitting around in your gold vault. A persons wealth alone isn't a good indicator for how much tax they should be paying. Those workers generate profit for the corporation, how much of it the CEO and executives see as profit is up to their corporate culture and what they decide to set their salary at. Their [I]wealth[/I] is a reflection of how much of the company they own in shares, and how much that company is valued. Unless that company offers dividends (which are also taxed), those are just pieces of metaphorical paper waiting to be sold. A bad day on the market can crash the value of them pretty quickly. Thus, you can be a billionaire (own lots of a big companies shares), and not make shit in income. (alternatively, you can be a mega-rich billionaire, and still be in a lower tax bracket because you throttled your own salary down to 1$, and you make your income through other means) (for the record, I do think the tax system is jaded and needs work. Including the closing of loopholes)
[QUOTE=Noah Gibbs;50202076]It could also be thought that poor people aren't capable of paying the full tax rate. Rather than the rich pay more taxes than the poor because they are richer. Doesn't have to be some weird envy thing.[/QUOTE] Economists have been saying for some time now that not only is supply-side economics and trickledown economics fundamentally flawed, lowering the tax rate for the bottom brackets would actually grow the economy as the middle and lower class are actually very unlikely to save their earnings as opposed to the top brackets which are almost certain to stuff them in a bank or holding firm somewhere to avoid taxes [editline]25th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=OvB;50202113]You can be a billionaire and still make shit for income, and thus be in a lower tax bracket. Billionaire is a measure of wealth, not how much money you have sitting around in your gold vault. A persons wealth alone isn't a good indicator for how much tax they should be paying. Those workers generate profit for the corporation, how much of it the CEO and executives see as profit is up to their corporate culture and what they decide to set their salary at. Their [I]wealth[/I] is a reflection of how much of the company they own in shares, and how much that company is valued. Unless that company offers dividends (which are also taxed), those are just pieces of metaphorical paper waiting to be sold. A bad day on the market can crash the value of them pretty quickly. Thus, you can be a billionaire (own lots of a big companies shares), and not make shit in income. (alternatively, you can be a mega-rich billionaire, and still be in a lower tax bracket because you throttled your own salary down to 1$, and you make your income through other means) (for the record, I do think the tax system is jaded and needs work. Including the closing of loopholes)[/QUOTE] Your doing something wrong if your portfolio isn't diversified enough to avoid the UPS and downs, however you are sort of right in that CEOs do tend to have large amounts of stock in their own company due to the practice of large stock options and regulations regarding how they can liquidate that stock, but in general yes you can make nothing as income and live off of dividend, which is what the capital gains tax is supposed to catch but Republicans slashed that to well below what one would pay on similar income Also you have to pay property taxes which are more tricky to avoid but like the Panama papers showed, there are ways to own 1Bn$ in property and not pay tax on 1Bn$ worth of property through shell companies that keep your assets hidden
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50198839]I thought this was common knowledge? Every rich person/company incorporates in delaware. Lots of millionaires list their permanent address in Florida as well, and are very careful to avoid the IRS finding them actually living in NY[/QUOTE] Common within the US, not common without.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50201787]Getting mad at the people using the loophole won't solve it when the state is the one perpetuating it for its own gains.[/QUOTE] And you're still avoiding actually discussing it. The point is it doesn't matter [I]who[/I] is responsible. Both parties are in the wrong here. The state for being retarded enough to allow it and the people who abuse the loophole for lacking in morality.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;50203057]And you're still avoiding actually discussing it. The point is it doesn't matter [I]who[/I] is responsible. Both parties are in the wrong here. The state for being retarded enough to allow it and the people who abuse the loophole for lacking in morality.[/QUOTE] Here's a topic of morality: what if people who use tax avoidance tend to donate everything of what they saved in tax liabilities, to charities? What if closing those 'loopholes' causes charities to suffer? Point is: 'Morality' shouldn't be an argument used in these debates, because everyone has different morals. When you say 'morality' you're saying 'my morals are right, yours are wrong', when morals are neither right nor wrong.
[QUOTE=sb27;50203458]Here's a topic of morality: what if people who use tax avoidance tend to donate everything of what they saved in tax liabilities, to charities? What if closing those 'loopholes' causes charities to suffer? Point is: 'Morality' shouldn't be an argument used in these debates, because everyone has different morals. When you say 'morality' you're saying 'my morals are right, yours are wrong', when morals are neither right nor wrong.[/QUOTE] Except that doesn't actually happen, lol. Plus there's a lot of tax breaks for the rich donating large amounts of money anyways. So you should try for an example that actually makes sense, then your argument might hold some water.
[QUOTE=sb27;50203458]Here's a topic of morality: what if people who use tax avoidance tend to donate everything of what they saved in tax liabilities, to charities? What if closing those 'loopholes' causes charities to suffer? Point is: 'Morality' shouldn't be an argument used in these debates, because everyone has different morals. When you say 'morality' you're saying 'my morals are right, yours are wrong', when morals are neither right nor wrong.[/QUOTE] Do you have any proof that that hypothetical situation takes place to any significant degree? And yes, I would still find it "immoral" - we've democratically decided that we should give a certain percentage of our income to certain, democratically decided on purposes (building roads and whatnot). If everyone decided to evade (sure, tax avoidance is different, but personally I think it's more about the spirit of the law - especially if we're talking moral obligations) taxes to donate to charity, society would stop functioning. Therefore we shouldn't allow anyone to do so.
[QUOTE=sb27;50203458]Here's a topic of morality: what if people who use tax avoidance tend to donate everything of what they saved in tax liabilities, to charities? What if closing those 'loopholes' causes charities to suffer? Point is: 'Morality' shouldn't be an argument used in these debates, because everyone has different morals. When you say 'morality' you're saying 'my morals are right, yours are wrong', when morals are neither right nor wrong.[/QUOTE] This is a bullshit cop-out and you know it. Donating your money away should not give you the right to skip out on paying your taxes, regular citizen or multi-billionaire. And part of the reason people donate to charities in the first place is that it both promotes a positive image to the public AND gives them tax write-offs for a portion of what they donated. Regardless, the state has taxes because it needs funding, and if the richest people in the country reduce how much they contribute, then everyone else ends up having their own taxes raised to compensate, either that or we get benefits slashed, which again, hurts those in need the most. Forcing additional tax burden on the lower class just because you can hide your money hundreds/thousands of miles away is immoral no matter how you spin it.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;50203057]And you're still avoiding actually discussing it. The point is it doesn't matter [I]who[/I] is responsible. Both parties are in the wrong here. The state for being retarded enough to allow it and the people who abuse the loophole for lacking in morality.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure how when I assign blame it counts as not discussing it, but when you do the same it suddenly does? The fact is the policy will never change unless the people fight for the change either in state or federally, federally presumably requiring it to be criminalized, and people out of state complaining at Fortune 500 companies for taking advantage of a broken system that everyone else would in their position is just a way to make yourself feel good. It's really easy to say, "I would never do that! It's amoral!", when you don't have a financial adviser saying, "Yeah I'll just fill out some paperwork and we'll cut down our income tax."
[QUOTE=codemaster85;50201798]i rather sit in an meeting all day getting paid 500K a year than break my back all day for 15K[/QUOTE] I think you're grossly underestimating the amount of work they do You don't get to the top by sitting in meetings
[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50202040]for the sake of any bystanders im going to entertain your fallacious post even though its too emotionally charged to be a good argument 1. earn those billionaires their fortunes? how? if i work in a factory, im not paying for the equipment or assuming any risk, im being compensated for my time. the people who make the real money have put forth risk and their life (in the form of time spent earning money) in order to make a profit. if you raise the taxes on the rich too much, you're disincentivizing people who potentially would have started to produce. 2. your blatant guess as to what kind of libertarian i am is both amusing and irrelevant. you are also apparently beyond certain that without a large state, nobody would be rich. can i get tomorrows lottery numbers please? 3. i cant think of any time in my life wherein i was forcefully screwed over by a private actor. everytime i was provided subpar service, it was always during a transaction i voluntarily entered in to. the state however can screw me over any time they feel like it because almost no action with the state is voluntary and before you go "LOL ANARCHO CAPITALIST HERE!!!" i dont have a problem with paying taxes, nor do i have a problem with a small government. i do have a problem with forcing the rich to have a higher tax burden out of feelings of claas envy.[/QUOTE] But this is not forcing them to have higher taxes this is about them paying taxes they actually should? What class envy? Most rich people nowadays get their fortune by inheritance nowadays. The "hard working rich guy" is a myth kept up because it gives the middle class the stupid dream of "I can be rich too if I work hard enough". Capital gains have far surpassed gains from production. These people are literally getting richer because they are rich. [editline]26th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50203589]I think you're grossly underestimating the amount of work they do You don't get to the top by sitting in meetings[/QUOTE] Yes. Most get there by inheritance.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50203574]I'm not sure how when I assign blame it counts as not discussing it, but when you do the same it suddenly does? The fact is the policy will never change unless the people fight for the change either in state or federally, federally presumably requiring it to be criminalized, and people out of state complaining at Fortune 500 companies for taking advantage of a broken system that everyone else would in their position is just a way to make yourself feel good. It's really easy to say, "I would never do that! It's amoral!", when you don't have a financial adviser saying, "Yeah I'll just fill out some paperwork and we'll cut down our income tax."[/QUOTE] The issue was that you were flat out stopping at assigning blame and seemed to be using that as an excuse to not discuss the subject any further. And I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say with that second bit. Unless I'm just misunderstanding you it seems like you shifted focus part way through the first sentence so it's kinda incoherent.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.