What happens when something is good for the corporation but bad for the country?

Page 2 of 5  
<stuff snipped>

Not only that, by hiring an army of tax lawyers, lobbyists and CPAs companies like GE end up taking money OUT of the treasury. Some people will assure you that tax avoidance is completely legal, but it doesn't seem very moral. Especially when common citizens have NO chance to get special, personalized tax breaks.
As for the myth of passing on the cost of taxes to consumers, I suspect one or two truly competitive companies will go looking to cut costs like exhorbitant CEO salaries. When they do and their stocks flourish, the others will have to follow suit.
When I read through some of the posts here, you would think that some people aren't living in the same country. They wail about our plight when many US companies are reaching record stock prices, despite the poor rich folks having to pay taxes at the pre-Bush rates.
What they seem to forget is how America flourished for decades, even with high taxes on the rich and on corporations. Through lobbying and creative accounting the corporate tax burden as a percentage of taxes collected continues to shrink as our national debt continued to soar.
The table below (in millions of dollars) is based on statistics from the Office of Management and the Budget in the White House
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/
Year Total Individual Income Taxes Total Corporate Income Taxes (In Millions) (In Millions) 1943 6,505 9,557 1948 19,319 9,678 1968 68,726 28,665 1988 401,181 94,508 2008 1,145,747 304,346
Gee, if only I could hire an army of lawyers, lobbyists and accountants to get special deals to reduce MY tax bill! Something's definitely wrong with this picture.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So, basically you want tax law based on morality.. or more specifically what offends you?

You do, of course, know that actually salaries run around $1 million or so a year and that most the money comes from stock options and such, which are largely taken out of the pockets of the shareholders by dilution. Look at the 10-Ks and you will find most are that way because of tax changes (ironically enough passed because the Congress at the time was worried about increasing exec payment. You gotta love the law of unintended consequences).
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
would

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/01/news/economy/corporate-tax-rate/index.html

will

very

How you read what I wrote and came up with that gem really baffles me, Kurt.
The table I referenced showed that year after year, decade after decade corporations have outright bought themselves deep drinks at the Federal Treasury. I refer again to the table that makes this trend crystal clear and hope this time it does not reformat itself into illegibility.
Year Total Ind. Income Total Corporate Income Taxes (In Millions) Taxes (In Millions) 1943 6,505 9,557 1948 19,319 9,678 1968 68,726 28,665 1988 401,181 94,508 2008 1,145,747 304,346
Tell us what you think those numbers show other than that for year after year corporations, rich into the billions, have been offloading their share of the national tax bill onto the middle class which is slowly bleeding to death.
That is what's not moral. That rich companies can buy their way out of their long-standing tax liabilities by essentially bribing Congress to give them favorable treatment that's beyond the reach of most taxpaying citizens. Totally immoral. I am offended the Congress has been on sale to the highest bidders for decades now. If it doesn't stop, the US is in big trouble.

one

Oh Jesus in heaven, burn me at the stake, I said "salary" again and not "total compensation package." I forgot who I was dealing with - a person to whom that distinction appears to matter when in fact all the money a corporation pays its CEO, no matter WHERE that compensation *appears* to come from, comes from the company's treasury - eventually. Huge compensation packages for CEO's (who have often failed miserably at their jobs) reduce a company's ability to compete. These huge golden parachutes growing larger every year reduce a company's ability to do R&D, hire more and better workers and do the things that companies used to do before CEO salaries oops "compensation" got inflated to obscenity.
If the tax laws were tightened and mass loopholes were closed, those CEOs would pay the same tax whether it's salary, stock, hookers, free jets or stock options. So stock options are just another tax avoidance scheme they were able to use to get money and avoid paying taxes that they used to pay. The tax code needs to be rewritten - indeed zeroed out so that all these special breaks disappear

What Congress did was *appear* to fix the problem but they really served their corporate masters in the long run by leaving huge loopholes in the tax laws and never closing them. Those were very much "intended consequences" IMHO and perfectly in line with a Congress that loves to say "Look we did something" when in fact they did nothing. Or worse, they did do something: they screwed the voters over to please the corporations they obviously really serve.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:53:22 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

What it shows is how out of control big govt has screwed everyone with taxes that just continue to escalate and slowly make us all serfs of the state. And that maybe, just maybe, there is some sanity left in Washington, because they realize that those corporate taxes are ultimately paid mostly by consumers.


Again, you fail to address the obvious elephant in the room. When the price of corn goes up, what does Kellogg's do? They raise the price of cereal. When fuel costs go up, what does Fed Ex do? They raise the shipping price. So, what do you think economics 101 tells us that a corporation does when taxes on that corporation are raised? Have you ever taken an economics course?
Good grief, you libs are dense.
I suspect


For decades now, Republicans have proposed having a flat tax structure, with one rate, so that instead of jumping through the proper hoops and filling out 8 pages of forms to get to say 20%, they would just pay that rate directly. But of course you libs will have no part of it, because you so much prefer the current system. Why? Because you can fool the low information voters into believing that you're screwing the rich with a 40% tax rate that few actually pay. And because it leaves in place the system where Congress has the power to fiddle with all those tax laws that then favor one group over another. Yet, here you are, bitching about how that very power is ruining the country.
So stock options are just another tax avoidance scheme they

Republicans have been on board with that for decades. Even some Democrats. They want lower tax rates, get rid of most tax breaks. That results in a simpler, fairer tax system. It takes the power to fiddle with tax breaks away from Congress. It's the loon libs that won't have any of it.

In reality, Congress is screwing over both groups and you libs just prefer to try to divide the country, wage war against corporations, wage class warfare, etc, pretending that is the problem. Big govt, with out of control spending, is killing us ALL.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The main problem with the flat tax proposals is that there are many variants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax
Most that I've seen simply tax salary and leave unearned income alone. Not really fair to most of the workers.
Show me what you believe is a flat tax proposal. I'm all in favor of making paying taxes simple, but the vast majority of rules and regulations don't apply to me. My taxes are pretty simple. The complications are put there by people with a lot of money that need sheltering. And, while we're at it, tax religious institutions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have no objection to a tax free status for DONATIONS but I'm damned if I see why they shouldn't be taxed on their commercial and/or real estate operations, of which there are many.
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

True flat tax is that take income from all sources, add them up, times some percentage, and send it in. The REAL problem with flat tax would be in withholding since I don't all that many people in real life who could plan far enough ahead to make sure they had the money on 4-15. I would also suggest a general personal deduction to help alleviate some of the disparities with people using a large %age of their income for necessities. I am not sure you can tax religious institutions because of that separation of church and state thingy.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, August 5, 2013 9:39:31 AM UTC-4, dgk wrote:

First, I assume it's individual income taxes that you're talking about, but same idea applies to corp as well. I agree that there are a lot of obvious issues that need to be addressed. I think we're on the same page, that basically all income should be taxed the same, whether it's from salary, interest, capital gains, etc. Then you wouldn't have folks like Warren Buffet paying tax at a lower rate than someone who is salaried. And you wouldn't have all the economic distortions caused by people structuring their business/investment decisions to avoid high tax rates. The key is that the rate needs to be low enough, probably in the range of 20 - 25%.
As for taxing religious institutions, as long as the money is being used for charitable purposes, I have no problem with that remaining tax exempt. If a charity earns $1mil on investments and uses it to feed the poor, I don't see why that needs to be taxed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The corp profits you allude to end up in the pockets of stock holders such as myself. I presume you are one of the middle clase who own no stock and are therefor being "bled". So the dwindeling $$$ of people like you are ending up in the pockets of people like me.
That is as it should be. Read some history.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Some people will assure tax avoidance is completely legal but it doesn't seem very moral". How you wrote that and can't see how I came up with that gem baffles me.

And again you make the moral argument.

You don't use the correct terms and that is somehow my fault? Also, if you want to explain to me how the money paid out in stock options comes from the treasury, I might be more willing to cut you some slack in your verbiage. The stock options are only paid for by the stockholders through dilution according to every study I have seen. If you would care to make the case otherwise feel free. And again, you studiously ignore the really neat thing. This was all done by Congress in an attempt to reign in exec compensation and did the exact opposite. Actually it also ended doing the exact opposite of aligning the interests of the executive with the shareholder by making by far and away the largest percentage of exec pay based on running the stock price and not the company.

Of course they did. You rewrite history in addition to economic indicators?
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/3/13 12:18 PM, Robert Green wrote:
Some cut.

More cut.
Just a single point about the Dow. This http://tinyurl.com/mts85hr leads to a chart at aboutinflation.com.. It isn't all that high after adjusting for inflation. It says on another page the average American earned $5/hour in 1976. That would be about $19.70 today.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, August 3, 2013 1:18:58 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

No chance for tax breaks for the common citizen? What exactly is the mortgage tax deduction? Or the tax credits we recently had for making energy efficient improvements to your home? Or deductions for medical expenses? IRAs? Good grief.

Try taking a course in economic. And then explain to us why a business would treat a cost increase cost in the form of higher taxes any differently then they would an increase in raw materials cost, labor, fuel costs, etc.

What's wrong with the picture, is that you don't get it. Conservatives and even some Democrats for years have been in favor of reducing the corporate tax rate and at the same time, eliminating a lot of the loopholes and tax breaks. You'd have a flatter, fairer tax and businesses would be making business decisions solely on business and not on what they have to do to avoid paying 40% tax rates. You wouldn't have some corpoarations paying taxes at 40%, while others pay at 10% or zero.
But libs want none of it, because you'd rather keep bitching about the evil corporations and pretending that you're socking it to them with high, punitive tax rates. Meanwhile, the corps keep their $2 tril in cash overseas, to avoid paying high tax on it. Then you bitch that jobs aren't being created here. Go figure.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
message

Oh, pish. No special, personalized tax breaks? I guess it depends upon what you mean by "special" and "personalized" but what about...
personal deduction
dependant(s) deduction(s)
state taxes
charitable deductions
student load interest
job search
moving
property tax
medical
mortgage interest
education credit. CREDIT, not deduction
child CREDIT
renewable energy CREDIT
child care CREDIT
retirement savings CREDIT
earned income CREDIT
etcetera, etcetera, etcetera
And even more if you are a small business owner or work for yourself in some manner.
And therein lies the problem...our tax code/system is so convoluted, so twisted, so bend-over-backwards to make up for one thing by screwing us on another that it is fair to no one.
And it gets worse and worse. Remember when income tax started? I don't nor is it likely that anyone else here does but it was sold to the public by saying, "It isn't going to affect YOU, just the rich". Sound familiar?
Then there is withholding which was supposed to be a war time measure. Sure. It was certainly a master stroke though; a machiavellian one, turning every employer in the country into a tax collector. I wonder how much "voluntary compliance" there would be without it.
The whole thing is a mess and it is a mess because of special interests...from/to corporations, farmers, businesses and just plain folks. Congress spits it out because it helps them get re-elected.
We need a tax system that is simple and fair; use the system and you pay more than a non-user (why should I pay to educate/cloth/feed your offspring?).
We need legislators that are citizen legislators, not professional ones. One term and you are out, no pension.
We need a government that can live within its means.
We also need pigs that can fly.
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, August 3, 2013 3:57:57 PM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:

Excellent job! I had a good laugh when Bobby claimed that there are no tax breaks available to the individual. I'll bet that's like his limousine lib position on guns. No one else should have the right to a gun, but then he admits he himself had a carry permit. So I'm sure he's taking full advantage of every tax break himself, while pissing and moaning about how they don't exist, except for corporations. And it's also the loon libs that won't go for a flat tax that would eliminate most of the loopholes.
Regarding the income tax, when it was passed early last century, not only were people sold on the idea that it would only effect the very rich, but also that the top rate was just 7%. Within just a few years, the top rate became 77%.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Well yes, that is how it started. There seemed to be an assumption that people who make (or inherit) a lot of money should assume a large burden of paying for the system that made it possible. Of course over time they pushed it onto working people.
Now I get to pay for a military that costs as much as that of the rest of the world combined, but I don't reap many of the benefits.
Actually, our tax rate isn't out of line with the rest of the world. What is out of line is how much of our taxes goes to the military.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/3/2013 1:18 PM, Robert Green wrote:

Our tax code is written as a legal, not moral basis. If you want it changed, petition you lawmakers. I'm sure they will help you.
You do have many loopholes and credits available to you too. If you don't see them you need a better accountant.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If any one is interested in actually finding a fact or two, this is the URL to get the information tax expenditures, Congress speak for loopholes. https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&idE03 (Although I would probably hit the tax expenditures link on the right hand side because that is smaller and easier to read file).
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 9:49:39 AM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

You would be AMAZED as to how much of their personal salaries those CEOs would be willing to sacrifice to protect their phony baloney jobs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Hi, One thing I am REALLY pissed. Off shore corporate accounts. It should be illegal holding money outside country.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/31/2013 9:53 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:

********Trim Excess********

I believe the only reason a corporation or individual would keep their money in a bank outside the country is because if it were in a bank here, the money could disappear without warning with NO due process because any low level bureaucrat at The IRS or some other federal agency could call up your bank and tell them to send the government all your money. The banker would say, "OK, where do you want us to send it?" If I were fabulously wealthy, I would damn sure put the bulk of my money beyond the reach of the feds. ^_^
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.