 FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
2 recommendations |
FFH5 to pnh102
Premium Member
2011-Nov-10 11:03 am
to pnh102
Re: Worth repeating - corporations don't pay taxes-customers doSure, when some companies pay corporate taxes and other can avoid it, there are distortions in the marketplace that makes things less economically efficient. That is the fault of government.
There should be no corporate taxes. But public officials love to tax the sheeple indirectly - it makes them believe they aren't being taxed. If all taxes were levied against individuals directly, as it should be, they would finally realize how much money the government was taking from their pockets. |
|
| |
GetReal
Anon
2011-Nov-10 12:15 pm
said by FFH5:If all taxes were levied against individuals directly, as it should be, they would finally realize how much money the government was taking from their pockets. So, businesses should get away with basically using fire and police services for free? They should get the benefits of the military without paying something into the cost? They should benefit from the education system without paying something into that system? Get real. Businesses use and benefit from government services and should pay for them along with individual taxpayers who benefit. If business don't pay for the services that they use, then the tax payer is subsidizing them and frankly, the individual taxpayer has subsidized profitable private industries far too much. |
|
| |
viperlmw
Premium Member
2011-Nov-10 12:40 pm
After all, corporations are people, too! |
|
1 recommendation |
to GetReal
said by GetReal :said by FFH5:If all taxes were levied against individuals directly, as it should be, they would finally realize how much money the government was taking from their pockets. So, businesses should get away with basically using fire and police services for free? They should get the benefits of the military without paying something into the cost? They should benefit from the education system without paying something into that system? Get real. Wow, that was a really impressive job of COMPLETELY ignoring the argument that you were responding to. |
|
| |
GetReal
Anon
2011-Nov-10 1:13 pm
said by footballdude:Wow, that was a really impressive job of COMPLETELY ignoring the argument that you were responding to.
Not quite. The argument was made that taxes should not be levied against businesses, only against natural persons or, in the post replied to, "individuals". There are reasons why businesses should pay taxes, most specifically that they receive benefits from government services. The response was pointing that out that there are reasons businesses should pay taxes too. |
|
 amarryatVerizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA |
They pay property taxes on their buildings. Just like you pay them on your house. |
|
| |
A good percentage of corporations have gotten their government flunkies to reduce or eliminate their property taxes. Try doing that with your house |
|
| |
GetReal to amarryat
Anon
2011-Nov-10 3:44 pm
to amarryat
said by amarryat:They pay property taxes on their buildings. Just like you pay them on your house. Yes that is true, however, the original poster made a statement that taxes should only levied on individuals. If you hash that idea completely out, that preclude property taxes on business properties if they were owned by corporations. |
|
amarryatVerizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA |
to Wilsdom
If I employed hundreds of people in my town at my house, I'd probably be able to negotiate something like that. |
|
|
| |
to GetReal
said by GetReal :The argument was made that taxes should not be levied against businesses, only against natural persons or, in the post replied to, "individuals". Nope. His point was that taxes levied against businesses are simply passed on to individuals. |
|
amarryatVerizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA |
to GetReal
Corporations are merely groups of people. Tax that entity and you are really taxing the investors, eg. 401K plans invested in stocks etc. |
|
 rawgerzThe hell was that?
Premium Member
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA |
to FFH5
That just means that you, and everyone else is left to make up the difference.
This is a company that has Indian tech support for dsl and refuses to deploy faster speeds in areas that are not fios, then they wonder why dsl sales dry up.
Seems to me the average person should have benefited from this by now. Why is my bill not cut in half to represent Uncle Sam's share being cut out? Why are areas they won't deploy any service beyond POTS in not being built because they have a 2-4 year ROI? Why has FIOS builds stopped?
I would think investors would love to have some of those questions answered.
Besides, haven't you been watching Fox news lately? We're in massive debt, but corporate giants not paying taxes is good?
If you're really for lower taxes, demand your elected official cut military spending by 90%. Your taxes will be half what they are now! |
|
| |
GetReal to amarryat
Anon
2011-Nov-10 4:03 pm
to amarryat
said by amarryat:Corporations are merely groups of people. Tax that entity and you are really taxing the investors, eg. 401K plans invested in stocks etc. Yes they are, which is why the corporate income tax should be zero if we continue to tax capital gains and dividends the way we are doing it now. If the corporation has already paid taxes on its profits, the shareholders shouldn't have to pay taxes again on that same money and vice versa. However, no person or group of people should benefit from government services without paying for them and corporations receive a benefit from the government in the form of services like fire and police protections. Advocating for no taxes on corporations means that individuals are forced to pay higher rates and are essentially subsidizing the services that businesses receive from the government. |
|
| GetReal |
to footballdude
said by footballdude:Nope. His point was that taxes levied against businesses are simply passed on to individuals. In the original post, yes. In the post I responded to, no. The point of the post I responded to was that taxes levied on business should be eliminated because they are simply passed on. My point is that creates a problem whereby business benefits from services it doesn't pay for if you do that. There is no reason to debate that those taxes are passed on to customers since we all know that is the case, however it is fair to debate the idea that business should pay no tax because they pass those costs on. |
|
amarryatVerizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA
1 recommendation |
to GetReal
said by GetReal :If the corporation has already paid taxes on its profits, the shareholders shouldn't have to pay taxes again on that same money and vice versa.
I dream of that day. By extension, then all money should be taxed once and only once. However it is taxed again and again in the current system. When I get paid, I also pay taxes. When I pay someone to mow the lawn, they pay taxes on the money that I paid them, which was already taxed. And on and on..... |
|
| |
GetReal
Anon
2011-Nov-10 4:29 pm
said by amarryat:I dream of that day. By extension, then all money should be taxed once and only once. However it is taxed again and again in the current system. When I get paid, I also pay taxes. When I pay someone to mow the lawn, they pay taxes on the money that I paid them, which was already taxed. And on and on..... I don't know how that would work though... You would eventually end up at a point where nothing would be taxed because the money has flowed through the economy a couple of times. There is no simple solution to an issue like taxation. |
|
amarryatVerizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA |
said by GetReal :said by amarryat:I dream of that day. By extension, then all money should be taxed once and only once. However it is taxed again and again in the current system. When I get paid, I also pay taxes. When I pay someone to mow the lawn, they pay taxes on the money that I paid them, which was already taxed. And on and on..... I don't know how that would work though... You would eventually end up at a point where nothing would be taxed because the money has flowed through the economy a couple of times. There is no simple solution to an issue like taxation. Maybe a consumption tax, but to prevent re-taxation, only on the end product. |
|
93388818 (banned)It's cool, I'm takin it back
join:2000-03-14
Dallas, TX |
to GetReal
Tell that to the 47% of individuals who pay NO federal income taxes whatsoever. |
|
 mlub
@frontiernet.net |
mlub to GetReal
Anon
2011-Nov-10 7:29 pm
to GetReal
So because I am a small biz owner of a corp this does not mean that me our my staff drives on anymore public roadways, uses more school resources, goes to the library anymore, etc. I pay my taxes as a citizen just like everyone else and then some! Because I am taxed on revenue that I dont get to take home because I like the idea of keeping cash in the bank to pay bills and payroll, I end up with a tax rate about 40%.
We all pay our taxes and use the same amount of "public services" in infrastructure, defense, etc. Stop thinking that all corporations need taxed. Most of the corps out there are small biz like me and more taxes will crush them in this rat hole economy. Just clean up the tax code and put everyone on the same field and get rid of the loop holes that large firms can lobby DC to put in for them. |
|
 Huh
@verizon.net |
Huh to GetReal
Anon
2011-Nov-10 8:12 pm
to GetReal
Huh? So you understand business passes the cost of taxation onto customers, hence individuals are already paying for the government services from which the business benefits. Business ALREADY benefits from services it doesn't pay for. Seems you're contradicting your own point... |
|
| |
GetReal to mlub
Anon
2011-Nov-10 8:08 pm
to mlub
Well, if businesses don't want to pay their share of taxes, fine. Then you shouldn't expect the police or the fire department to show up at your business when you need them. |
|
| |
HuhWhat to Huh
Anon
2011-Nov-10 9:08 pm
to Huh
Uh, what? If you continue along your line of reasoning, my employer is paying my property taxes because my money comes from them. And if you keep going, it means that anyone that purchased a service from our company is paying for my property taxes. But because I might have paid for something from our customers' employers, I'm paying them to give me my money back to pay my own taxes. Rinse - wash - repeat.
Seriously, that argument can get a bit ridiculous. |
|
dplantz
join:2000-08-02
Bradenton, FL |
to amarryat
The FairTax does just that taxes once and is a consumption tax. » www.fairtax.org. Gaining more support and more co sponsors each year. I like it. |
|
 dib22
join:2002-01-27
Kansas City, MO |
to viperlmw
said by viperlmw:After all, corporations are people, too!
Then shouldn't they be subject to laws and regulations like the people? |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC |
to dplantz
I was not able to find a single negative consequence on that website!! Is this a perfect tax plan? Any real look at an alternative system should put forth its negatives in addition to its positives.
Please explain how this FairTax derives income from bartering.
How does this system generate revenue from money spent overseas?
Does this system encourage big business to spend more or to spend less? |
|
|
amarryatVerizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA |
to GetReal
I don't know how it is where you are, but my police and fire department are funded by my property taxes. |
|
| |
GetReal
Anon
2011-Nov-11 11:20 am
said by amarryat:I don't know how it is where you are, but my police and fire department are funded by my property taxes.
The same here, but you've missed the point... If people are going to claim that businesses should pay no taxes, which would also mean not paying property taxes, then businesses should receive no benefits from the fire and police department. |
|
| GetReal |
GetReal to 93388818
Anon
2011-Nov-11 11:39 am
to 93388818
said by 93388818:Tell that to the 47% of individuals who pay NO federal income taxes whatsoever.
I love how everyone cherry picks the 47% number. The 47% number comes from the number of tax payers who didn't pay taxes at the worst part of the recession (2009) when millions of people had no jobs, ergo had no taxable income. If you figure in 9 percent unemployment, then it would be close to 38%. If you count total unemployment, including "discouraged workers", which is conservatively around 16%, it drops to 31%. If you count those who work, but are underemployed, that number drops into the upper end of the 20% range. The number is also inflated due to, get this, the tax cuts that were passed during the Bush administration in 2001 which lowered tax liabilities to zero on many, those same tax cuts that were extended by Obama and then stimulus packages passed by both the Bush and Obama administrations which granted tax credits that pushed even more people to a zero or negative liability. In other words, the 47% number comes from the fact that the recession has wiped out the earning power of a lot of taxpayers, who before the recession, were paying taxes. People who use this number clearly have no clue where it comes from and really need to understand where it comes from. The reality is likely much lower than that number when the economic times are less dire. |
|
amarryatVerizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA |
to GetReal
I don't think that any one is saying that a corporation, who has a physical presence, should not have to pay any property taxes on that building. Just like if I were to buy a second home, I'd be paying property taxes on that as well. I think you took it too literally. |
|
