On 11/21/2011 5:38 AM, John B. wrote:

Nothing is wrong with a company making billions in profits. But that's
as long as they pay a fair share into the treasury. When they pay none
at all it's kind of hard to see it as fair. Simply because they come out
owing nothing due to the peculiarities of the tax code doesn't mean
that's fair. What if the tax code itself is unfair? You can be following
the rules perfectly but that doesn't' mean what you are doing is fair.

You have a strange viewpoint. The federal government says pay this
amount and a company pays it and you then say that it isn't fair.....

Right. Because that company paid someone to go to Washington and stay
there every day and try to get the government to give them breaks that
the rest of us can't ever get. That company has tremendous power to
influence the government to do it's bidding. We've seen examples of this
for 100 years. First it was the shipping industry and timber, then it
was the railroads, and then oil. All of them used their power to get
what they wanted from the government. So when the government asks for a
pittance from them you know that's not the same kind of deal you or I get.


To be frank this sounds very like the people who smoke pot and say,
pot isn't as much of a health risk as drinking whiskey and then say it
isn't fair when they get arrested...

That does sound unfair alright. Whiskey is a lot worse for your health
than pot and you don't get arrested for using it. Do you think the
people who make whiskey have a better lobby than the pot smokers do?




By the way, do you take all the deductions that the tax department
allows you? Or do you say, "Oh well, did pretty well on the
securities this year", and mail the government 30%?

I do, but as a little guy I'm not able to get what the big guys do. I'm
only asking to pay what is fair for what one's economic position is.
People making under 50K a year should pay very little in taxes. How can
they live if they are giving up 10K or more of that money when you
consider how much it costs just to live? Compare that to someone making
ten million who gives up seven in taxes but has three million a year to
live on. You don't see the difference?



I don't think that's right. I think those businesses should be paying
much closer to 30% of all the taxes to the treasury. I also find it
amusing that the average guy, who is paying for everything in this
country doesn't seem to mind that he's paying a lot of taxes and huge
corporations pay none. I find that ironic to say the least.

Hawke

Of course, and people who can afford to hire Tax consultants to
structure their lives also pay less tax then average. Should we shoot
all the H&R Block accountants.

No, but they shouldn't be able to find ways to make it where lots of
money can be made without owing any tax debt, unless it's a special deal
the government is trying to foster.

Hawke, the government makes certain regulations and specify what, in
certain circumstances, you must do. Why do you say that obeying these
regulations and doing exactly what the government specifies is unfair?

Because it all depends on what part of the government you are dealing
with. If you have to obey traffic laws or follow building codes or
things like that then the government is pretty darn fair. You won't see
you getting special treatment on your building permits and I don't. So
for most areas of the government the regulations are applied equally.
When you get into other areas, especially where big, powerful entities
are involved, and with specific agencies, then you see the unfairness.



The point is that following U.S Government laws and regulations is not
a sin and damning a corporation for doing so is simply ridiculous,
isn't it.

It's when the government and the corporation collude with each other and
it harms the majority of citizens that you have a problem. I see a
problem. One privileged group is making out like bandits and the
majority are eating it.

There you go again. But if I'm not mistaken you have a wife and I
assume that when you file your income tax you take the married
deduction and I'm equally sure that a single guy would say that since
you are paying less tax then he does it is unfair.

No wife. Single, white male so it doesn't apply to me. But this issue
has been argued many times and there is a specific argument why married
people pay more. I don't recall what the justification is but I know a
lot of people think it's fair and a lot disagree. I couldn't tell you
one way or the other on this but a lot of times this is how it goes. One
person thinks one thing is fair and the other disagrees.


But more to the point referring to your collusion theory. the last
company I worked for was established in 1975 and thus couldn't
possibly colluded with anyone before that date. However they did file
their taxes in strict accordance with the tax code applicable to their
company and any changes to the code that occurred after the company
was formed. Are they guilty of some crime?

Probably not. Most companies comply with the tax code. Everyone tries to
pay as little as possible. The question is does the government treat us
all fairly. I don't think so and I think the powerful have gotten a
better deal. Is the company you refer to one of them? I don't know.



To put another light on your statement, taxing a company 30% implies
that the company will not have as high profits after tax as
previously, and what is the easiest cost to cut? Usually people, so
increasing taxes may well result in a reduction in available jobs, and
even possibly a reduction, however infinitesimal, in the tax paid. Not
to mention an added incentive to move off shore.

China has no problems like this. Business and the government don't
collude in China. In China the government tells business what to do and
they do it, or else. In our country way too often it works out just the
opposite, and it's been going on like this for quite a while not and
that is why there is so much inequality. Business and wealth have gotten
control over a lot of the government. That has caused a lot of misery
among ordinary Americans.

Don't be too sure about what the Chinese do. It is pretty much a new
ball game over there now. The people's Republic is now very much a
profit center. The Agricultural Bank of China recently had a US$22
billion initial public offering (IPO) - the world's largest, I
believe. Due you really think that the government is dictating to
these people?

Yeah! Do communist leaders rule? Yeah! The rulers give business a free
hand as much as they think it needs. But no more. And everybody knows
who's really the boss and it's the government that calls the tune not
the corporations. Just the opposite of what we have here.



Your claim that a big company should pay a higher percent of their
profits as tax then a company that does less business is simply
rewarding mediocrity. If you work hard and prosper the government
takes more of your money than taken from the drone who is too lazy to
work.

That is not how the market works. The harder working company makes more
than the lazy company. That's a crock. Plenty of companies that don't do
well work like dogs but just don't succeed that well. It's more about
the popularity of products than about hard work. I'd wager all the phone
companies work just as hard as Apple does when it comes to making and
selling phones. It's just that Apple's phones sell a lot better than
their competitors. Apple makes more than the other phone companies so
they pay more in taxes. I don't say their tax rate should be different
from their less prosperous competitors. I say corporate tax rates should
be higher than what working class citizens are paying.


Assuming that you are talking about the blue collar, working man, why
should the company he works for pay more tax then he does? After all
if it weren't for the company the bloke wouldn't even have a job. and
don't talk about how the company makes all the money on the back of
the poor working man. while it might once have been true but with the
advent of the labor unions it isn't true any more.

Because a company isn't a person and companies don't deserve the same
rights as a human being does. A company is just an artificial construct
for a group of people to accomplish some goal. You don't treat that kind
of thing the same as a human. So workers get special treatment compared
to businesses, at least according to me. That's probably backwards
according to any businessman but then I think their view is no humane.


After all Hawke, you have bragged about the fact that you have a
collage education and that you are financially secure, don't have to
work any more. Exactly the same description applies to people in the
bottom half of the top 1%. Collage education, worked hard, invested
their money, now financially secure through their own endeavors. Does
that mean that Hawke should pay more taxes?


If I make more money than they do then yes I should. But if I only
barely make ends meet off of my investments and someone else makes a lot
more from a wage paying job then who should pay more? In that case I say
it's about how high is your income not how did you come by it. If I make
30K a year from investments and the other guy makes 120K from his job
then he should pay the higher rate.

Hawke

But what about the people making minimum wages at McDonalds. Doesn't
your philosophy indicate that you should share with them? After all
you are one of the bloated plutocrats, living off interest instead of
earning your daily crust like an honest man. After all, if you have
municipal bonds in your portfolio you aren't even paying minimum tax
on those and those poor devils swabbing the floor there have to pay on
everything.


If the guy at McDonald's makes 20K a year in wages and I make 20K a year
in dividends and interest shouldn't we pay the same tax rate? I think
so. OTOH, if I make 2 million from my portfolio and he makes 20K then I
think I should be paying a much higher rate than he does. Even if you
take one of the two million I made in a year I can live great on a
million. If you take anything from the McDonald's guy you're really
depriving him of any kind of decent life. Personally, I would never do
that to those on the bottom of the ladder. That's why we pay different
rates.

Hawke