[QUOTE=sgman91;49561241]Care to explain how everyone paying exactly the same percent of their income isn't equal?
I'm not even saying that flat taxes are the right idea. I just don't see how you can say that it isn't inherently equal.[/QUOTE]
Just because it takes an equal percentage of income doesn't mean it's equal at all. Seriously?
If I take half of 200, I have 100. If I take half of 10, I have 5. Those are by no means equal, equal ratios sure, but life and living expenses don't work that cleanly.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49561482]Just because it takes an equal percentage of income doesn't mean it's equal at all. Seriously?
If I take half of 200, I have 100. If I take half of 10, I have 5. Those are by no means equal, equal ratios sure, but life and living expenses don't work that cleanly.[/QUOTE]
To quote myself from 3 posts after that one:
[QUOTE]I see, we're talking about different things. You're talking about equality of result and I'm talking about legal equality. Of course you're right that the result isn't equal. I wouldn't even try to argue against that.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=sgman91;49561484]To quote myself from 3 posts after that one:[/QUOTE]
Didn't see that
[QUOTE=sgman91;49561278]I see, we're talking about different things. You're talking about equality of result and I'm talking about legal equality. Of course you're right that the result isn't equal. I wouldn't even try to argue against that.
[editline]18th January 2016[/editline]
I'm confused by your position. Here you seem to be saying that we should take more money from wealthier people because they are wealthier, but earlier you specifically said we shouldn't do that.
Can you clarify what position you support because I must be missing some nuance?[/QUOTE]
I wasn't really trying to take a position on flat taxes I was just trying to illustrate how it isn't an "equal burden" because the nominal amount paid is crazy different. Was just an example, not my opinion.
[QUOTE=wystan;49561495]I wasn't really trying to take a position on flat taxes I was just trying to illustrate how it isn't an "equal burden" because the nominal amount paid is crazy different. Was just an example, not my opinion.[/QUOTE]
What is your opinion on the best tax system? I'm curious.
[QUOTE=wystan;49561495]I wasn't really trying to take a position on flat taxes I was just trying to illustrate how it isn't an "equal burden" because the nominal amount paid is crazy different. Was just an example, not my opinion.[/QUOTE]
If you're okay with taxes at any level, who should the taxes primarily come from? The poor, or the wealthiest? If you say "evenly", how do you determine that because a flat tax is the "evenest", but clearly the most problematic for the poor. Should we even have taxes?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49561506]If you're okay with taxes at any level, who should the taxes primarily come from? The poor, or the wealthiest? If you say "evenly", how do you determine that because a flat tax is the "evenest", but clearly the most problematic for the poor. Should we even have taxes?[/QUOTE]
The only other "even" tax I can think of would be a consumption tax, basically a hugely increased sales tax instead of an income tax.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49561439]The lack of resources comes from the societal cost of those who need government assistance (Medicare, for example), not the usage of public resources by the wealthy. If you want to argue that the wealthy need to pay more, that's fine, but it's not because they cost or use the system more. It's because you need the wealthy to pay for those at the bottom and middle who can't pay for the services they use.[/QUOTE]why do you think those people are reliant on social services? how is the wealth being funneled away from the middle & working class on it's own? many wealthy people actively lobby for policies that directly improve their situation at the expense of other people. the ceo of goldman sachs can be fined $5 billion and then contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to a polticians campaign while going into washington and saying "cut this social service, cut that social service"
the wealthy who caused the 2007/2008 have ruined more lives and done more damage to the economy than any medicare or welfare recipient, over 50% of whom are working a job, who's wage is decided by the rich yet they are still struggling through life. the US has some of the highest productivity in the world, yet they are still on welfare. who are the people deciding those wages? who are the people refusing to pay their fair share of taxes, while actively lobbying to get those taxes reduced. who are the pharmecutical lobbyists who lobby to uphold a system where there is profit to be made, the strength of these private insurance companies is directly related to policies implemented that make them the only choice regardless of a persons affluence.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49561517]The only other "even" tax I can think of would be a consumption tax, basically a hugely increased sales tax instead of an income tax.[/QUOTE]
which isn't actually a bad idea, but also has numerous draw backs
I think we just need to culturally accept that being ludicrously rich means you have to pay some of that money to the world around you. It has no affect on you in reality so why should that really be the biggest deal?
[QUOTE=sgman91;49561476]Yes, they pay less taxes because the US has the highest corporate taxes in the world. The companies would have to be absolute idiots to bring their money back into the US and pay an additional 30+% for essentially no reason after already paying taxes in the country that the money was made.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, but they are making money from [b]us[/b], yet avoid following regulations that would help [b]our[/b] government pay off expenses, but you know, they just need to store more money in their already large cash pile instead and pass that cash to their children instead of sharing it with [b]we[/b] the people.
[video=youtube_share;btApgfZQoIw]http://youtu.be/btApgfZQoIw[/video]
Just a quick video on the similarities between Regan and Bernie. In either case its very clear that companies work for profit. Nothing else. So they cut jobs, lower wages and crack down on unions for more profit. How is it fair that the poor are working 10 hour days in some cases, making less than 8$ an hour when the same company makes thrice that from the work the person does? Corporations should be enforced to maintain a living wage, as well as health benefits for all workers, not just full time.
I extremely doubt the person arguing against increase minimum wage in here has an economics degree. If you look at it plain and simple, a higher minimum wage means more money in the hands of people, which means more economic growth. Sure the small businesses will suffer some at the introduction of these wages, but at the same time theyre the biggest party benefiting from it. I know people who drive 50 minutes to go to walmart because theyre so strict on budget, while small buisnesses nearby suffer because they cant match prices of walmart and other companies. With more money, people are more liable to spend money at those buisnesses. Because more money in the hand of workers means more buisness to the small businesses.
In the same manner, during the 1950s, Eisenhower had a 90% tax rate on the wealthy, and that was the strongest era in american history, especially consodering that ike built the freeway systems. The rich pay a pittance compared to people like my family who live far below poverty level, and should pay more. I don't see how its ethical to take 22,000$ from someone making 75,000$ when wealthy people end up losing 300,000 on their monstrous income of 2 million through loopholes and evasion.
some of the recent business books i've been reading really aim to talk about what the next economy model is going to have to look like. Working a 9-5 job is not sustainable for most people, and corporations don't aim to make it stable, they are legally obligated to aim for short term profits above all else. If you don't see the obvious result of that which is, and always will be a form of punishment on the workers who actually allow such businesses and corporations to exist then I don't know what to say.
The industrial age is over. Putting your head down and working hard doesn't work anymore. You won't end up on top like that. You will not climb corporate ladders like that. You will not even have a modicum of wealth, not income, wealth, to show for your years of dedication.
It really used to be a societal model that you graduate, you go look for a job with good security, and you work your life away for them. Now, security is a non existent word in the job market for the average folk. And it's not coming back.
[QUOTE=lolo;49561542]Exactly, but they are making money from [B]us[/B], yet avoid following regulations that would help [B]our[/B] government pay off expenses, but you know, they just need to store more money in their already large cash pile instead and pass that cash to their children instead of sharing it with [B]we[/B] the people.[/QUOTE]
Money held overseas wasn't made from us. It was made in another country, and the company didn't bring it back into the US. Any money made in the US is taxed under the US's corporate tax rates.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49561604]Money held overseas wasn't made from us. It was made in another country, and the company didn't bring it back into the US. Any money made in the US is taxed under the US's corporate tax rates.[/QUOTE]walmart has 78 oversea subsidiaries, worth $76 billion, located in tax havens where they own [B]zero[/B] stores
22 subsidiaries located in luxembourg, worth $64,000,000,000, 0 stores. 5 in the netherlands, worth $12,400,000,000, 0 stores.
they knowingly exploit loopholes to avoid paying taxes, they knowingly lobby to keep open those loopholes. putting so much effort into avoiding all this tax while they lobby for less tax.
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;49561649]walmart has 78 oversea subsidiaries, worth $76 billion, located in tax havens where they own [B]zero[/B] stores
22 subsidiaries located in luxembourg, worth $64,000,000,000, 0 stores. 5 in the netherlands, worth $12,400,000,000, 0 stores.
they knowingly exploit loopholes to avoid paying taxes, they knowingly lobby to keep open those loopholes. putting so much effort into avoiding all this tax while they lobby for less tax.[/QUOTE]
Sure, but that money still wasn't made in the US. It was made overseas, and is then held overseas to avoid paying the very high US corporate tax rates.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49561604]Money held overseas wasn't made from us. It was made in another country, and the company didn't bring it back into the US. Any money made in the US is taxed under the US's corporate tax rates.[/QUOTE]
It's as easy as saying your company resides in the Tax Haven country and bam, no more corporate taxes from the US. But sales taxes or income taxes are a whole different ball game, and I can go on with other methods of different tax evasion methods.
[QUOTE=lolo;49561665]It's as easy as saying your company resides in the Tax Haven country and bam, no more corporate taxes from the US. But sales taxes or income taxes are a whole different ball game, and I can go on with other methods of different tax evasion methods.[/QUOTE]
Generally, they don't move the company to the tax haven. They just hold money in the tax haven while keeping their headquarters in the US. Now, if you start forcing them to pay full corporate taxes on all foreign earnings, then you better bet that they will start moving headquarters out of the US. 35% is a MASSIVE incentive. I'm sure there are a number of companies where it's worth moving their headquarters out in order to keep a full third of their profits.
This isn't as bad as I thought. If my math is right 2.2% of 30k is only $660 so if that's how much I'd have to pay extra it would be fine with me since my premiums add up to $2520 a year as it is and its catastrophic coverage which doesn't help at all. I still end up paying for most of my health care after that first free yearly checkup.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49561662]Sure, but that money still wasn't made in the US. It was made overseas, and is then held overseas to avoid paying the very high US corporate tax rates.[/QUOTE]they transfered $45 billion worth of assets to luxembourg from countries such as Brazil, Japan,
Puerto Rico and South Africa. out of the 27 countries internationally where walmart has stores/significant employees, they own those through shell companies domiciled in tax havens. they are doing tax avoidance on a global scale, and they also use similar loopholes in the united states.
in 1995 walmart was investigated over their subsidiary called WMR created in 1991, they were using a trademark holding company to hide over $11,000,000 in state taxes. that is just one subsidiary that was investigated. they actively try to exploit loopholes to reduce how much state tax they pay while also increasing the amount of corporate subsidies they recieve.
how is it right for them to so vehemently avoid taxes while also lobbying the government for policies that will negatively affect the working people? the walton family owns more than the bottom 40% of americans, and it is steadily increasing. where do they strain that wealth from? they actively exploit the system. there are people on the top of their board actively trying to pay as little tax as they can, knowing that many people who work under them and provide the labour/generation of wealth in their company are struggling. they don't accidentally come across these loopholes, they put a lot of time and effort into avoiding the taxes and corporations of all types spend money politically to keep the system rigged.
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;49561737]they transfered $45 billion worth of assets to luxembourg from countries such as Brazil, Japan,
Puerto Rico and South Africa. out of the 27 countries internationally where walmart has stores/significant employees, they own those through shell companies domiciled in tax havens. they are doing tax avoidance on a global scale, and they also use similar loopholes in the united states.[/QUOTE]
That's exactly what I've been saying... They make money overseas and put the money in tax havens instead of paying the 35% US corporate tax rates.
[QUOTE]how is it right for them to so vehemently avoid taxes[/QUOTE]
Honestly, I really don't understand why the US should have any right to tax earnings made overseas. The company invested money in another country, made money in that other country, and kept the money outside of the US. The money never touched the US.
[QUOTE]where do they strain that wealth from?[/QUOTE]
I would guess by running the biggest corporation in the world that employs more people than any other private entity. You want Walmart to not be ridiculously wealthy? Then you need to start convincing people to pay more for products at smaller stores.
[QUOTE]they actively exploit the system. there are people on the top of their board actively trying to pay as little tax as they can, knowing that many people who work under them and provide the labour/generation of wealth in their company are struggling. they don't accidentally come across these loopholes, they put a lot of time and effort into avoiding the taxes and corporations of all types spend money politically to keep the system rigged.[/QUOTE]
EVERYONE pays as little tax as they can. It's not like your regular Joe and Jill purposefully don't use any method they know of to legally get out of taxes. You want corporations to stop going out of their way to keep money out of the US, then make it so they don't have to pay the highest rate in the world to bring it back in.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49561777]That's exactly what I've been saying... They make money overseas and put the money in tax havens instead of paying the 35% US corporate tax rates.
Honestly, I really don't understand why the US should have any right to tax earnings made overseas. The company invested money in another country, made money in that other country, and kept the money outside of the US. The money never touched the US.
I would guess by running the biggest corporation in the world that employees more people than any other private entity across the globe.
EVERYONE pays as little tax as they can. It's not like your regular Joe and Jill purposefully don't use any method they know of to legally get out of taxes.[/QUOTE] i'm not saying they should be taking that overseas money, i'm saying that walmart exploits systems globally to avoid paying tax everywhere. this also goes down to the smaller scale of state tax avoidance.
they are running the biggest corporation in the world while their average sales worker earns $15,576 a year, $6474 under the federal poverty line. they are knowingly avoiding taxes while underpaying their workers, they actively fight against minimum wage increases while hiding profits that could pay for those increases for no reason other than to avoid paying taxes on them and let them sit there. the wealth of walmart is not directly flowing from the walton family, it comes from the people in the structure producing that wealth and they get none of it.
regular joe and jill avoid taxes they get punished, big boys avoid taxes they get more $$$ for lobbying n for filling up their coffers. regular joe and jill sell 3 day old food and label it prime, someone gets food poisoning they go to jail. big boys sell loans based on complete shit n clapse the global economy n they get a bail out. the corporations and individual people are treated completely differently. man smokes a joint, goes to jail for a decade. man ruins peoples lives in the pursuit of profit, he keeps gettin dat profit.
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;49561802]i'm not saying they should be taking that overseas money, i'm saying that walmart exploits systems globally to avoid paying tax everywhere. this also goes down to the smaller scale of state tax avoidance.[/QUOTE]
Do you have a source on that specifically? I was under the impression that, for example, Walmart will make money in Japan, pay Japanese corporate taxes, and then store the money in a haven in order to not bring it back into the US and be double taxed.
[QUOTE]they are running the biggest corporation in the world while their average sales worker earns $15,576 a year, $6474 under the federal poverty line. they are knowingly avoiding taxes while underpaying their workers.[/QUOTE]
Their starting wage is currently $9/h, and will be $10/h in Februrary ([URL]http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/19/news/companies/walmart-wages/[/URL]). Where are you getting your numbers from?
[QUOTE]regular joe and jill avoid taxes they get punished, big boys avoid taxes they get more $$$ for lobbying n for filling up their coffers. regular joe and jill sell 3 day old food and label it prime, someone gets food poisoning they go to jail. big boys sell loans based on complete shit n clapse the global economy n they get a bail out.[/QUOTE]
You won't see me defending the bailouts.
Walmart should pay taxes on overseas money because theyre based in America
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49562088]Walmart should pay taxes on overseas money because theyre based in America[/QUOTE]
Uh, that's terrible logic, and a great way to make companies "base" themselves elsewhere.
[QUOTE=wystan;49560959]You see nothing wrong with forcing the wealthy to pay more just because they're wealthy? How do you rationalize that? [/QUOTE]
I rationalize it the same way your economics textbook rationalizes progressive taxes.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49562170]Uh, that's terrible logic, and a great way to make companies "base" themselves elsewhere.[/QUOTE]
American citizens are also required to pay taxes abroad even if it is money earned in another country
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49562507]American citizens are also required to pay taxes abroad even if it is money earned in another country[/QUOTE]
I was curious about this. So I looked it up. It seems like you don't pay any taxes up to ~$100,000 on earned income if you made it outside of the US through the Foreign Earned Income Exemption. You can also subtract any tax you paid in a foreign country from your US taxes.
So, realistically, you don't have to pay much US tax at all while working in a foreign country, and if you make less than $100,000 or pay more taxes in the foreign country than you would have to in the US, then you wouldn't have to pay anything.
I still don't understand how people can be against public health care in the US.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49561411]How are you drawing the connection between their wealth and using the system to get that wealth? Generally, people get their wealth by starting a very successful business, making extremely good investments, or working a high paying career like a CEO. None of these paths take more out of the system than any other person, and they add a whole lot more into the system through taxes, employment, etc. than someone in the lower or middle classes.[/QUOTE]
Ha..right most people get their wealth from hard work...look at fucking Turing's former CEO, just a "middle-class " kid who happened to get a full ride to the most prestigious highschool in new York, then flunked out and somehow got an internship at Goldman Sachs who don't generally take highschool dropouts or anyone below a 4.0 GPA, then somehow he managed to bootstrap tens of millions in VC financing...all from hard work right? Not maybe because his family was wealthy, connected and he had every door opened for him. The quickest way to get wealthy is to have wealth already, just being a Harvard student or Yale student opens doors that non ivy league college grads don't get. Ya people still make money and success on their own but to get to leadership of a fortune 500 company you have to come from money
Plus since they write the tax code, CEOs who are mostly paid in stock don't pay the same taxes on their divadens as a normal worker pays on their income.at most, like 15-20% of a CEO's pay is cash, the rest is stock or bonuses, and then that's before you get into the many ways to avoid or defer paying taxes on that income through various schemes of which some involve tax havens, while others involve creative writeoffs, plus on the income that is cash, there are upper limits on how much programs like medicare, social security and taxes can take, so someone who makes like 300,000 and someone who makes 500,000 pay the same rate because they'd both be in the same bracket
[QUOTE=eirexe;49562706]I still don't understand how people can be against public health care in the US.[/QUOTE]
Mostly because we don't trust our politicians to actually do anything correctly, obamacare has been executed horribly for the middle class.
[editline]19th January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;49562533]I was curious about this. So I looked it up. It seems like you don't pay any taxes up to ~$100,000 on earned income if you made it outside of the US through the Foreign Earned Income Exemption. You can also subtract any tax you paid in a foreign country from your US taxes.
So, realistically, you don't have to pay much US tax at all while working in a foreign country, and if you make less than $100,000 or pay more taxes in the foreign country than you would have to in the US, then you wouldn't have to pay anything.[/QUOTE]
This applies inter-state as well, if you're a resident living in one state, and earn income from another, you have to pay the other states taxes on your income, and then your own state's taxes minus the taxes collected in the other state.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.