Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

If you paid a single dollar in Federal Income Taxes....Follow

#27 Mar 02 2011 at 9:53 PM Rating: Good
***
2,453 posts
gbaji wrote:


There's also a huge difference between corporate "profits" and "income". When you understand that a corporation is simply a pool of money people have put together for common business cause, this makes sense. A corporation does not benefit from gaining profits the way a person benefits from gaining income. If you get paid, you have that money. You can spend it on whatever you want. When a corporation gains money, it may have come from a variety of sources, not all of which we agree should be taxed.


Well, the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people for some purposes, so I don't see why they can't be people for tax purposes.

And yes, there is a very big difference between income and profit. Profits are pure gain. Income is not. Virtually my entire income is taxed because I do not have much in the way of write offs. If I were a business(like my mother-in-law the lawyers), then I could write off huge amounts of things as "business expenses". The fact that I have many of the identical expenses she does, makes no difference at all. I can't write them off, she can.

Also, you're an idiot too.
#28 Mar 03 2011 at 2:32 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
gbaji wrote:
There's also a huge difference between corporate "profits" and "income".

It's a semantic point, but you're categorically wrong. Net profit and net income are synonymous terms in business usage. I'm guessing you meant revenue when you said income.

gbaji wrote:
Let me give you a very simple example. You and your 9 friends form a corporation. You each invest a thousand dollars into the corporation. The corporation, therefore is worth $10,000. The corporation "gained" $10,000 in value as a result of your collective investment. But should that be taxed? Of course not. No more than you would expect to have to pay taxes for simply putting your money into a bank account. All you did was move money from one place to another, with ownership staying the same.

Do you really know anything about business? It isn't taxed because it isn't income, for the same reason a company "gaining" $10,000 in a bank loan isn't taxed. That investment is an asset.

This is accounting 101 gbaji. Do you really not know what items go on an income statement and what items go on a balance sheet?

Edited, Mar 3rd 2011 2:42am by Allegory
#29 Mar 03 2011 at 2:53 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
This is accounting 101 gbaji. Do you really not know what items go on an income statement and what items go on a balance sheet?


Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! Pick me!
#30 Mar 03 2011 at 6:54 AM Rating: Decent
Deathwysh wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Writing off losses to continue to provide 300,000+ jobs (at GE)?

Now if we had only charged them a billion dollars in taxes on gross revenue. I bet we could have had an extra 50,000 people on the unemployment rolls.


General Electric was the Fortune 500's 4th most profitable company in 2009 with profits of over 17.6 billion dollars.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the list, so I'll focus on the example I used.

Federal Corporate Income Tax in the U.S. is 35% for everything over $18.333m. Do you have any idea what sucking $6.2b dollars out of a company like that would do? The CEO made $10m and that's the complaint you choose to bring out? One guy makes five one hundredths of one percent of the companies profits and there's your articles proof that the company is f'ucking Americans over? It's a company that employs somewhere in the neighborhood of 135,000 Americans. That's nearly five and a half billion dollars in income that gets taxed and spent in every state in this country. That's over 2 billion dollars in to government coffers at all levels paid by employees of a single company. The author, and by association you, is arguing what exactly, that we should deny a company the ability to deduct losses because the country is better served by having the tax dollars from the company than the families putting bread on the table?
#31REDACTED, Posted: Mar 03 2011 at 9:54 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#32 Mar 03 2011 at 11:16 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,453 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Deathwysh wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Writing off losses to continue to provide 300,000+ jobs (at GE)?

Now if we had only charged them a billion dollars in taxes on gross revenue. I bet we could have had an extra 50,000 people on the unemployment rolls.


General Electric was the Fortune 500's 4th most profitable company in 2009 with profits of over 17.6 billion dollars.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the list, so I'll focus on the example I used.

Federal Corporate Income Tax in the U.S. is 35% for everything over $18.333m. Do you have any idea what sucking $6.2b dollars out of a company like that would do? The CEO made $10m and that's the complaint you choose to bring out? One guy makes five one hundredths of one percent of the companies profits and there's your articles proof that the company is f'ucking Americans over? It's a company that employs somewhere in the neighborhood of 135,000 Americans. That's nearly five and a half billion dollars in income that gets taxed and spent in every state in this country. That's over 2 billion dollars in to government coffers at all levels paid by employees of a single company. The author, and by association you, is arguing what exactly, that we should deny a company the ability to deduct losses because the country is better served by having the tax dollars from the company than the families putting bread on the table?


No. The author is suggesting that maybe, just maybe, corporations the make gargantuan profits off of the American people should have their MULTI-BILLION dollar PROFITS taxed in order to support the country that is making them fUcking wealthy. Every one of these companies pays more taxes, excuse me.. let me correct that.. pays taxes in every other country in which they do business, and yet remarkably, contrary to what every conservative fUcktard would have you believe, STILL manage to conduct business and make a profit. Why? Because those countries don't offer the same mammoth loopholes and tax dodges that our tax code does. Despite the rantings of everyone right of center, actually having to pay taxes on one's corporate profits does not cripple a company.



#33REDACTED, Posted: Mar 03 2011 at 11:21 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) deathy,
#34 Mar 03 2011 at 11:33 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Deathwysh wrote:
Despite the rantings of everyone right of center, actually having to pay taxes on one's corporate profits does not cripple a company.
Not true. Not everyone right of center believes that ****. Stop pulling a gbaji/varus yourself there. Also, why do you support taxing yourself twice?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#35REDACTED, Posted: Mar 03 2011 at 11:47 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ugly,
#36 Mar 03 2011 at 12:24 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Idiocy, something you know well.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#37 Mar 03 2011 at 12:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Not everyone right of center believes that sh*t.

Look buddy, either you're the racist moron with a kitten's understanding of government or you're the die-hard GOP tool who says "Gee, I sure hate to agree with the racist moron but here's twenty-five paragraphs of ridiculous reasons why everything he said is 100% correct..."

You're going to have to pick one.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Mar 03 2011 at 12:32 PM Rating: Decent
Deathwysh wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Federal Corporate Income Tax in the U.S. is 35% for everything over $18.333m. Do you have any idea what sucking $6.2b dollars out of a company like that would do? The CEO made $10m and that's the complaint you choose to bring out? One guy makes five one hundredths of one percent of the companies profits and there's your articles proof that the company is f'ucking Americans over? It's a company that employs somewhere in the neighborhood of 135,000 Americans. That's nearly five and a half billion dollars in income that gets taxed and spent in every state in this country. That's over 2 billion dollars in to government coffers at all levels paid by employees of a single company. The author, and by association you, is arguing what exactly, that we should deny a company the ability to deduct losses because the country is better served by having the tax dollars from the company than the families putting bread on the table?

No. The author is suggesting that maybe, just maybe, corporations the make gargantuan profits off of the American people should have their MULTI-BILLION dollar PROFITS taxed in order to support the country that is making them fUcking wealthy. Every one of these companies pays more taxes, excuse me.. let me correct that.. pays taxes in every other country in which they do business, and yet remarkably, contrary to what every conservative fUcktard would have you believe, STILL manage to conduct business and make a profit. Why? Because those countries don't offer the same mammoth loopholes and tax dodges that our tax code does. Despite the rantings of everyone right of center, actually having to pay taxes on one's corporate profits does not cripple a company.

A couple of things, because you're not smart.
1) Every one of the companies you listed was taxed in the United States of America during the time period you list. The taxes levied on them were off-set.
2) I did not suggest that the companies couldn't make a profit by paying taxes. I suggested that the benefits of allowing them to write down losses the same as any other entity under the tax code does outweighs the reverse.
3) I am well right of center, and I have not, nor would I, suggested that taxes would cripple a company. See above for the actual suggestion.

I should also point out that I love the fact that rich people and corporations can find ways not to pay taxes, and I will cheer them every time it happens until the day comes when the United Stated abolishes its "progressive" tax system and adopts one that doesn't penalize success and reward laziness.
#39 Mar 03 2011 at 12:33 PM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Not everyone right of center believes that sh*t.

Look buddy, either you're the racist moron with a kitten's understanding of government or you're the die-hard GOP tool who says "Gee, I sure hate to agree with the racist moron but here's twenty-five paragraphs of ridiculous reasons why everything he said is 100% correct..."

You're going to have to pick one.

F'uck me.
#40 Mar 03 2011 at 12:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I didn't even have to buy you dinner.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#41 Mar 03 2011 at 1:14 PM Rating: Good
***
2,453 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Deathwysh wrote:
Despite the rantings of everyone right of center, actually having to pay taxes on one's corporate profits does not cripple a company.
Not true. Not everyone right of center believes that sh*t. Stop pulling a gbaji/varus yourself there. Also, why do you support taxing yourself twice?


Forgive my hyperbole. But otherwise I'd be happy to be taxed twice. Just twice that is. Every dollar I get is taxed when I get it, when I spend it, when I save it, when I die and leave it to someone else, every single year when the property I own gets taxed... hell, I'd love it if I was only taxed twice.
#42 Mar 03 2011 at 1:17 PM Rating: Good
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
I should also point out that I love the fact that rich people and corporations can find ways not to pay taxes, and I will cheer them every time it happens until the day comes when the United Stated abolishes its "progressive" tax system and adopts one that doesn't penalize success and reward laziness.


A progressive tax system does reward success. It yields diminishing returns, but honestly, when has that ever hurt the economy in any way? The fact is that mathematically, if you're paying absurd amounts in taxes, you're making that much more absurd amounts of money, and you either have plenty of incentive to keep working, or you just want to hit a retirement point anyway, at which point you'll stop working once you hit it.

Unchecked capitalism isn't a system of total fairness where how hard you work determines how much you make. It's tautological to think that success is determined by how much money one can make, but that's the measure of "success" that capitalism uses. A progressive tax system just irons out some of the inherent unfairness of the system. Otherwise capitalism is only fair if you think of it as some kind of game with an absurdly big rulebook where part of the rules is that if you know the people who make the rules you can really get a leg up... it's fair as long as it's in the rules!... or you don't get caught!... or you have a friend with a Get Out of Jail Free card...
#43 Mar 03 2011 at 1:25 PM Rating: Decent
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
I should also point out that I love the fact that rich people and corporations can find ways not to pay taxes, and I will cheer them every time it happens until the day comes when the United Stated abolishes its "progressive" tax system and adopts one that doesn't penalize success and reward laziness.

A progressive tax system does reward success.

True. It is rewarded with a total tax burden of, in some cases, nearly 60% of income. Sign me the f'uck up!
Kachi wrote:
It yields diminishing returns, but honestly, when has that ever hurt the economy in any way? The fact is that mathematically, if you're paying absurd amounts in taxes, you're making that much more absurd amounts of money, and you either have plenty of incentive to keep working, or you just want to hit a retirement point anyway, at which point you'll stop working once you hit it.

How does that remotely relate to, or mitigate, the fact that progressive income tax structures penalize success and reward laziness?
Kachi wrote:
Unchecked capitalism isn't a system of total fairness where how hard you work determines how much you make.

Ah, you want fairness. You must have grown up in a house without a dad. Or he was a sh:tty father. Mine taught me life wasn't fair at a pretty early age.
#44REDACTED, Posted: Mar 03 2011 at 1:41 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#45 Mar 03 2011 at 1:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sex without paying for it? SCORE!!

Bet you wish you were a liberal, eh?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#46 Mar 03 2011 at 1:59 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,453 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Or he was a sh:tty father. Mine taught me life wasn't fair at a pretty early age.


Who are you kidding? A mirror taught you life wasn't fair.
#47 Mar 03 2011 at 1:59 PM Rating: Good
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
How does that remotely relate to, or mitigate, the fact that progressive income tax structures penalize success and reward laziness?


You have to look at the big picture. The overall system still amply rewards success. Just because one element of the system doesn't maximize the success:reward ratio doesn't mean that the system punishes success and rewards laziness. Quite the contrary.

Quote:

Ah, you want fairness. You must have grown up in a house without a dad. Or he was a sh:tty father. Mine taught me life wasn't fair at a pretty early age.


So did mine. Yours must not have taught you that the point is to MAKE it fair.

Afterall, if you accept that life isn't fair, then you really don't have any grounds to complain that a progressive tax system isn't fair. You can argue that it's ineffective, but there's not much of an argument to make there.
#48 Mar 03 2011 at 2:16 PM Rating: Good
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
How does that remotely relate to, or mitigate, the fact that progressive income tax structures penalize success and reward laziness?


You have to look at the big picture. The overall system still amply rewards success. Just because one element of the system doesn't maximize the success:reward ratio doesn't mean that the system punishes success and rewards laziness. Quite the contrary.

That's nonsensical, at best.

Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Ah, you want fairness. You must have grown up in a house without a dad. Or he was a sh:tty father. Mine taught me life wasn't fair at a pretty early age.

So did mine. Yours must not have taught you that the point is to MAKE it fair.

So f'ucked for life then. My dad taught me to suck it up and be a man.
#49 Mar 03 2011 at 2:23 PM Rating: Default
Moe,

You're dad told you to suck it? That I can believe.

#50 Mar 03 2011 at 2:38 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Quote:
Yours must not have taught you that the point is to MAKE it fair.
That's ridiculous. Life can't be made fair. Impossible. You can try and improve parts of it, but it will never be fair. This is the real world, not some fantasy.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#51 Mar 03 2011 at 3:50 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
How does that remotely relate to, or mitigate, the fact that progressive income tax structures penalize success and reward laziness?


You have to look at the big picture. The overall system still amply rewards success. Just because one element of the system doesn't maximize the success:reward ratio doesn't mean that the system punishes success and rewards laziness. Quite the contrary.

That's nonsensical, at best.

Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Ah, you want fairness. You must have grown up in a house without a dad. Or he was a sh:tty father. Mine taught me life wasn't fair at a pretty early age.

So did mine. Yours must not have taught you that the point is to MAKE it fair.

So f'ucked for life then. My dad taught me to suck it up and be a man.


So you're not going to do anything to make life fairer, which makes you a leech. Meanwhile I'm getting my PhD and will be paid well to do things to make this rotten world a better, fairer place. At the very least you can't expect me to care about what you think is fair to you when you essentially say, "Fuck fairness."

It's only nonsense if you're too stupid to understand it. I'll bet the reality is that you don't have an argument so you resort to being dismissive.

Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
Yours must not have taught you that the point is to MAKE it fair.
That's ridiculous. Life can't be made fair. Impossible. You can try and improve parts of it, but it will never be fair. This is the real world, not some fantasy.


Yeah, it's not like fairness is all or nothing though. Christ, do I really need to modify everything to the strictest technical accuracy? The point is to make life as fair as it can reasonably be. That's why if I go around killing people just because I can, someone takes me away and locks ME up, likely even puts me to death. Hell, the primary argument against the progressive tax system is that it's NOT fair.

It's fine to argue that one system is fairer than the other (which I've already done if anyone* wants to actually challenge that), but don't try to dance around the issue by pretending that fairness doesn't matter. You care about fairness when it comes to you and yours, so let's not pretend otherwise.

*offer void where gbaji and varus
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 434 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (434)