02-03-2015 05:27 AM
401 ... 56789 ...
tools
  1. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Why should they reap the benefits of being a US company without paying for it? That's crazy. Especially when they ship jobs offshore but make their billions off of American taxpayers.
    I thought you had been in some of the threads where I discussed the Fair Tax. Individuals pay all taxes anyway, this would just be a more efficient way of collecting and cuts out the middlemen and IRS.
    04-01-2014 04:28 PM
  2. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Why should they reap the benefits of being a US company without paying for it? That's crazy. Especially when they ship jobs offshore but make their billions off of American taxpayers.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    But why do they ship those jobs off shore?

    A business operates in any country because it is profitable to do so. Proximity to their market, raw materials, infrastructure, and potentially good workers to name a few reasons.

    That being said, it is a mutually beneficial relationship between companies and governments. The government gets an economy for its citizens and thus taxes. The more a government directly taxes a business, the less favorable that country becomes to operate in. If another country is more favorable, the business goes there.

    Businesses move to other countries countries because it is favorable to them. We have made it so much less favorable here(despite having the largest economy), that companies can eat shipping and import/export costs and still be more profitable in other countries than if they operated here. You can wag your finger at the companies all you want, but it won't bring them back. Only profitability will. One of the easiest ways to increase profitability is by decreasing corporate taxes.
    04-01-2014 04:44 PM
  3. palandri's Avatar
    I thought you had been in some of the threads where I discussed the Fair Tax. Individuals pay all taxes anyway, this would just be a more efficient way of collecting and cuts out the middlemen and IRS.
    Why go through all that? Just make a flat tax with no exceptions. Mark Zuckerberg makes $1 a year as the CEO from Facebook, but he just exercised a $3.3 billion dollar stock option. Now the only part that is taxed is the increased value of the stock value, not the whole $3.3 billion, plus it's taxed at the lower capital gain rate and there's no social security or medicare taken out of it. Everything he did was 100% legal.
    04-01-2014 04:57 PM
  4. palandri's Avatar
    But why do they ship those jobs off shore?

    A business operates in any country because it is profitable to do so. Proximity to their market, raw materials, infrastructure, and potentially good workers to name a few reasons.

    That being said, it is a mutually beneficial relationship between companies and governments. The government gets an economy for its citizens and thus taxes. The more a government directly taxes a business, the less favorable that country becomes to operate in. If another country is more favorable, the business goes there.

    Businesses move to other countries countries because it is favorable to them. We have made it so much less favorable here(despite having the largest economy), that companies can eat shipping and import/export costs and still be more profitable in other countries than if they operated here. You can wag your finger at the companies all you want, but it won't bring them back. Only profitability will. One of the easiest ways to increase profitability is by decreasing corporate taxes.
    Really?

    Twenty-six of the most powerful American corporations such as Boeing, General Electric, and Verizon paid no federal income tax from 2008 to 2012, according to a new report detailing how Fortune 500 companies exploit tax breaks and loopholes....
    The Sorry State of Corporate Taxes | Citizens for Tax Justice
    04-01-2014 05:02 PM
  5. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Why go through all that? Just make a flat tax with no exceptions. Mark Zuckerberg makes $1 a year as the CEO from Facebook, but he just exercised a $3.3 billion dollar stock option. Now the only part that is taxed is the increased value of the stock value, not the whole $3.3 billion, plus it's taxed at the lower capital gain rate and there's no social security or medicare taken out of it. Everything he did was 100% legal.
    All that? The bill is only 131 pages long.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...-113hr25ih.pdf

    Plus there would be no need to keep up with all the paper work and to file your taxes. It's taken care of automatically just like a regular sales tax. Plus it has no exemptions, just like a flat tax (only without the abilty to corrupt the tax with adding loopholes later like happened in the past).

    Some other comparisons between the current, Fair, and flat tax systems. http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTax%2...on%20chart.pdf
    04-01-2014 05:09 PM
  6. palandri's Avatar
    All that? The bill is only 131 pages long.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...-113hr25ih.pdf

    Plus there would be no need to keep up with all the paper work and to file your taxes. It's taken care of automatically just like a regular sales tax. Plus it has no exemptions, just like a flat tax (only without the abilty to corrupt the tax with adding loopholes later like happened in the past).

    Some other comparisons between the current, Fair, and flat tax systems. http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTax%2...on%20chart.pdf
    I could make the bill in one sentence. All income regardless of source is taxed at 15%, no exceptions.
    04-01-2014 05:12 PM
  7. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I never said or implied that taxes were the only reason. I said a lack of taxes is one of the easiest ways for a country to become more favorable.
    palandri likes this.
    04-01-2014 05:16 PM
  8. palandri's Avatar
    I never said or implied that taxes were the only reason. I said a lack of taxes is one of the easiest ways for a country to become more favorable.
    LOL! So is two dollar a day labor for a 12 hour shift.
    04-01-2014 05:21 PM
  9. msndrstood's Avatar
    Who is supposed to pay for the infrastructure that the companies use? The roads that their tractor trailers ride on, the bridges, the police, the fire department etc are all paid for by taxes. Who will pay to clean up the rivers and streams, the oceans, the land that is destroyed by mining, fracking, drilling etc? Taxes paid by the little people. And you guys don't want the little guy to pay taxes, you don't want the rich 'job creators' to pay taxes, you don't want the multi billion dollar companies to pay taxes, so who is going to pay for all of the civilization that you and I have been using? I do not see how the Fair Tax can support a country of 313 million people. This isn't 1776. Running a country takes money, and a lot of it.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    A895 likes this.
    04-01-2014 05:27 PM
  10. NoYankees44's Avatar
    LOL! So is two dollar a day labor for a 12 hour shift.
    Your right. A way to fix this is by driving down the cost of living so workers will do the same work for less. Or having a country of more skilled laborers so the companies are willing to pay more. Or having great infrastructure and and extremely cheap operating costs so higher wages are easier to deal with. We can do all kinds of thing to make out country more favorable.
    04-01-2014 05:30 PM
  11. Aquila's Avatar
    Cars put together within a couple of miles of our border are made by people who work 11 hour days (x6) for an average of $40-52 per week. We cannot compete on cost in any universe. That's around 2-3 hours for starting professionals here... We're 20-30 times more expensive BEFORE benefits.

    XTNiT-1060 through spacetime.
    palandri, msndrstood and A895 like this.
    04-01-2014 05:34 PM
  12. palandri's Avatar
    .... This isn't 1776. ...
    Don't tell the Tea Party that!
    Attached Thumbnails Let's Make Them Squeal!-tea-party-blacks.jpg  
    04-01-2014 05:35 PM
  13. msndrstood's Avatar
    Don't tell the Tea Party that!
    Lol. Flashback.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    palandri and A895 like this.
    04-01-2014 05:55 PM
  14. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I could make the bill in one sentence. All income regardless of source is taxed at 15%, no exceptions.
    Really? Ok, you also need language to abolish/modify the current system of taxes as determined and regulation on what kind of supporting documents are required for various types of incomes. And what about monetary gifts between people? Are you going to tax the $20 check grandma sends you on your birthday too? If not, what's the limit? How do you handle coorporate taxes for companies with an HQ in another country and having U.S. based revenues and vice versa? That's just what popped in my head right off the bat, and I'm sure there's more.

    Who is supposed to pay for the infrastructure that the companies use? The roads that their tractor trailers ride on, the bridges, the police, the fire department etc are all paid for by taxes. Who will pay to clean up the rivers and streams, the oceans, the land that is destroyed by mining, fracking, drilling etc? Taxes paid by the little people. And you guys don't want the little guy to pay taxes, you don't want the rich 'job creators' to pay taxes, you don't want the multi billion dollar companies to pay taxes, so who is going to pay for all of the civilization that you and I have been using? I do not see how the Fair Tax can support a country of 313 million people. This isn't 1776. Running a country takes money, and a lot of it.
    The Fair Tax is designed to be revenue neutral, but some expect to see increased tax revenues as efficiencies are realized. Plus you'd have a much larger tax base than now. It's not that I want or don't want a certain group of people to pay taxes. I just understand how taxes acutally work when it comes to who eventually pays all taxes (the individual), and I like the Fair Tax because it just simplifies the whole process for everyone.
    04-01-2014 06:16 PM
  15. anon8126715's Avatar
    I don't know why every time you post you have to be snide about it. I guarantee you that you wouldn't be to me if we were face to face.

    Secondly, I'm 36. I do remember those wars. While i don't know how to be more clear by saying that I never liked bush, you keep commenting everytime I say something about Obama, you turn around and bring Bush into it.

    Lastly, you keep accusing everyone else here but you of being a koolaid drinker that disagrees with you, but you forget democrats and Republicans alike VOTED on the war in Iraq over false intelligence. I remember watching news channels with their panels of experts saying saddam would have nuclear weapons by the end of the year and what the hold up is and why we weren't attacking. I even read an article in Time about it.

    So, blame Bush for Iraq, but blame every person republican and democrat for it also.


    On edit: I say false intelligence, I guess it's what someone's definition of wmd's are. Last i heard the gas used in Syria was from Iraq, but that may have been wrong.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    The reason I keep mentioning GWB when you mention something negative about Obama is because you don't seem to understand that while Obama is not without fault, a lot of the mess was inherited from GWB.

    As far as being snide, is it because I'm disagreeing with you? And as far as if we were face to face, is it because you think I'd be intimidated and would not be inclined to disagree with you? Sounds like typically gun-toting-tea-party type intimidation tactics, "try intimidation if they shoot down all your talking points". Please tell me that's not what you mean.
    A895, rexxman and msndrstood like this.
    04-01-2014 06:20 PM
  16. msndrstood's Avatar
    Really? Ok, you also need language to abolish/modify the current system of taxes as determined and regulation on what kind of supporting documents are required for various types of incomes. And what about monetary gifts between people? Are you going to tax the $20 check grandma sends you on your birthday too? If not, what's the limit? How do you handle coorporate taxes for companies with an HQ in another country and having U.S. based revenues and vice versa? That's just what popped in my head right off the bat, and I'm sure there's more.



    The Fair Tax is designed to be revenue neutral, but some expect to see increased tax revenues as efficiencies are realized. Plus you'd have a much larger tax base than now. It's not that I want or don't want a certain group of people to pay taxes. I just understand how taxes acutally work when it comes to who eventually pays all taxes (the individual), and I like the Fair Tax because it just simplifies the whole process for everyone.
    I understand your point, but do you see mine? How can you justify a corporation using resources and not paying any taxes? How are those resources to be replenished if your tax plan is revenue neutral, you leave no wiggle room for rebuilding outdated and damaged infrastructure etc. Not to mention, if they don't pay any taxes, why wouldn't they be able to pay better wages and lift the economy and their workers lives? The corps are fighting tooth and nail not to raise the minimum wage now. If corps did the right thing we wouldn't need minimum wages and regulations.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    04-01-2014 06:22 PM
  17. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Cars put together within a couple of miles of our border are made by people who work 11 hour days (x6) for an average of $40-52 per week. We cannot compete on cost in any universe. That's around 2-3 hours for starting professionals here... We're 20-30 times more expensive BEFORE benefits.

    XTNiT-1060 through spacetime.
    So what do you propose we do to compete? We cannot blame other countries and people for doing whatever it takes to attract business or even to survive. The answer is surely not to make ourselves even less business friendly.

    And I have been in a Mexican auto factory before. Let's just say companies they have costs in other wages to worry about there... Their paint ovens make great baked chicken though.
    04-01-2014 06:39 PM
  18. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I understand your point, but do you see mine? How can you justify a corporation using resources and not paying any taxes?
    I do see your point, but it's my opinion that you are wrong. Like was discussed in above posts, buisnesses add in all costs, taxes included, into the price of their products. I.E. embedded taxes, and so it's all passed along until it reaches you and me at the retail level.

    How are those resources to be replenished if your tax plan is revenue neutral, you leave no wiggle room for rebuilding outdated and damaged infrastructure etc.
    Revenue neutral in regards to the Fair Tax refers to tax revenues. It's not designed to be about raises or lowering the amount of taxes the goverenment takes in, just a better way to collect them. So everything would still be paid for as it is now on the expense side, including infrastructure.

    Not to mention, if they don't pay any taxes, why wouldn't they be able to pay better wages and lift the economy and their workers lives? The corps are fighting tooth and nail not to raise the minimum wage now. If corps did the right thing we wouldn't need minimum wages and regulations.
    If you consider taxes being a cost to buisiness like I mentioned above, eliminating them is expected to cause an explosion of new jobs created as companies move (back) to the U.S. That increased demand will naturally cause wages to increase. Plus with the elimination of payroll taxes and prices staying about the same at the retail level, everyone is still going to see an effective increase in buying power even if wages don't go up.
    04-01-2014 06:47 PM
  19. msndrstood's Avatar
    I do see your point, but it's my opinion that you are wrong. Like was discussed in above posts, buisnesses add in all costs, taxes included, into the price of their products. I.E. embedded taxes, and so it's all passed along until it reaches you and me at the retail level.


    Revenue neutral in regards to the Fair Tax refers to tax revenues. It's not designed to be about raises or lowering the amount of taxes the goverenment takes in, just a better way to collect them. So everything would still be paid for as it is now on the expense side, including infrastructure.


    If you consider taxes being a cost to buisiness like I mentioned above, eliminating them is expected to cause an explosion of new jobs created as companies move (back) to the U.S. That increased demand will naturally cause wages to increase. Plus with the elimination of payroll taxes and prices staying about the same at the retail level, everyone is still going to see an effective increase in buying power even if wages don't go up.
    If your premise was correct, then the corporations that pay no taxes in the US now should bring all those overseas jobs back to the US, correct? But why don't they? Because they want to pay $2.00/day, that's why.

    About the fair tax, I don't remember all of your numbers from other threads but, what would be the total annual revenue? And how would that pay down the debt of 17 trillion and maintain the country and the government. That's a lot of revenue. I think your plan is too simplistic and will not generate the revenue that you think it will. Especially if corporations/companies pay no taxes whatsoever. That's a lot of lost revenue and we can't pay the bills we've incurred now, including 2 unfunded wars and an unfunded Medicare drug program.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    04-01-2014 07:00 PM
  20. toober's Avatar
    I understand your point, but do you see mine? How can you justify a corporation using resources and not paying any taxes? How are those resources to be replenished if your tax plan is revenue neutral, you leave no wiggle room for rebuilding outdated and damaged infrastructure etc. Not to mention, if they don't pay any taxes, why wouldn't they be able to pay better wages and lift the economy and their workers lives? The corps are fighting tooth and nail not to raise the minimum wage now. If corps did the right thing we wouldn't need minimum wages and regulations.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    The problem with just raising the minimum wage is that companies will just raise the prices on their goods and services to make up the difference and we still end up right where we started with minimum wage earners not being able to earn a living wage. So then, we should first institute price fixes to ensure companies cannot do that. Next, companies will probably try to lay off employees and over work the ones they keep. This would lead to high unemployment and more people on welfare, so we need to have some form of regulations banning employers from firing people and impose some very stiff fines on those that do. We also need to do something about the outsourcing of jobs, so there should be regulations stating that if a company does X amount of business in the US, they should have X% of their production facilities located in this country. We should also discuss the introduction of new products in the market as they would not be under the current price freeze. I am thinking there should be a government pricing board set up to make sure new products and services offered to the public are affordable and do not give companies an overabundance of profit. I'm sure that if we think really hard on this, we will be able to come up with many more solutions to our current problems and ensure prosperity to everyone.
    04-01-2014 07:04 PM
  21. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Who is supposed to pay for the infrastructure that the companies use? The roads that their tractor trailers ride on, the bridges, the police, the fire department etc are all paid for by taxes. Who will pay to clean up the rivers and streams, the oceans, the land that is destroyed by mining, fracking, drilling etc? Taxes paid by the little people. And you guys don't want the little guy to pay taxes, you don't want the rich 'job creators' to pay taxes, you don't want the multi billion dollar companies to pay taxes, so who is going to pay for all of the civilization that you and I have been using? I do not see how the Fair Tax can support a country of 313 million people. This isn't 1776. Running a country takes money, and a lot of it.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    A strong economy fixes all. A strong economy is impossible without a strong pro business environment. With a strong economy, you have more people making more money and paying more taxes.

    So what's the answer? Minimize the tax burden as much as possible while also keeping tangibles important to business and general wellness maintained. Foster an environment that is business friendly as possible while also protecting your citizens and staying off their backs.

    To spell it out: more government means more taxes. More taxes means higher tax burden. A proportionally higher tax burden means weaker economy. Weaker economy means less wealth. Less wealth means less paid taxes. Less paid taxes means worse infrastructure. Ect. Ect.

    Obviously there is a balance to be struck, but the general idea should always be to minimize the government(and thus tax burden) when possible.
    toober likes this.
    04-01-2014 07:12 PM
  22. palandri's Avatar
    Really? Ok, you also need language to abolish/modify the current system of taxes as determined and regulation on what kind of supporting documents are required for various types of incomes. And what about monetary gifts between people? Are you going to tax the $20 check grandma sends you on your birthday too? If not, what's the limit? How do you handle coorporate taxes for companies with an HQ in another country and having U.S. based revenues and vice versa? That's just what popped in my head right off the bat, and I'm sure there's more.....
    LOL! Don't try to make it complicated. What's so hard to understand about, " All income regardless of source is taxed at 15%, no exceptions". Now don't read anything into it that's not there and it's real simple to understand.
    04-01-2014 07:22 PM
  23. msndrstood's Avatar
    The problem with just raising the minimum wage is that companies will just raise the prices on their goods and services to make up the difference and we still end up right where we started with minimum wage earners not being able to earn a living wage. So then, we should first institute price fixes to ensure companies cannot do that. Next, companies will probably try to lay off employees and over work the ones they keep. This would lead to high unemployment and more people on welfare, so we need to have some form of regulations banning employers from firing people and impose some very stiff fines on those that do. We also need to do something about the outsourcing of jobs, so there should be regulations stating that if a company does X amount of business in the US, they should have X% of their production facilities located in this country. We should also discuss the introduction of new products in the market as they would not be under the current price freeze. I am thinking there should be a government pricing board set up to make sure new products and services offered to the public are affordable and do not give companies an overabundance of profit. I'm sure that if we think really hard on this, we will be able to come up with many more solutions to our current problems and ensure prosperity to everyone.
    I agree with a lot, if not most of what you've said, but the pushback from the right would never allow 99% of what you've proposed to see the light of day.

    Back to square one. 😒

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    04-01-2014 07:25 PM
  24. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I understand your point, but do you see mine? How can you justify a corporation using resources and not paying any taxes? How are those resources to be replenished if your tax plan is revenue neutral, you leave no wiggle room for rebuilding outdated and damaged infrastructure etc. Not to mention, if they don't pay any taxes, why wouldn't they be able to pay better wages and lift the economy and their workers lives? The corps are fighting tooth and nail not to raise the minimum wage now. If corps did the right thing we wouldn't need minimum wages and regulations.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    Corporations pay taxes on trucks and gas. They pay for the utilities and resources they use plus tax. Just because profits are not directly taxed does not mean taxes are not paid.

    And here is a curve ball. If we did not provide welfare programs, would companies like Walmart be able to pay as low as they do? Would the people just starve or would they demand higher wages?
    toober likes this.
    04-01-2014 07:31 PM
  25. toober's Avatar
    I agree with a lot, if not most of what you've said, but the pushback from the right would never allow 99% of what you've proposed to see the light of day.

    Back to square one.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    If it's a good plan, there should be no push back from any group. Also, if you consider that all we need is a majority vote to do it, there should be no problems at all. Has it not been established for years that it's the 99% against the 1%? Surely with 99% there would be overwhelming support for these measures.
    04-01-2014 07:38 PM
401 ... 56789 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Make choose action menu GO AWAY!!!!!!
    By Dallas Medina in forum Android 4.1 / 4.2 / 4.3 Jelly Bean
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-15-2014, 03:52 PM
  2. [Free][3D]Fire Making
    By jkm0114 in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-03-2014, 11:48 PM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-02-2014, 05:10 PM
  4. Nexus 7: Why does Google search want permission to make phone calls.
    By smoggyturnip in forum Google Nexus 7 Tablet (2013)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-02-2014, 09:27 AM
  5. iCallYou - Making a difference - Remind Your Friend(s)
    By roselalalar in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-26-2014, 03:07 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD