When is it enough?
12-21-2009 | 11:31 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
From: Out
There is never going to be a perfectly fair way to tax. Someone will always complain. Hell, a seniority list cannot even be merged without a similar response.
However, taxing someone more heavily as they succeed serves to dampen the motivation to succeed in the first place. As the progressive scale gets bigger, these same folks are able to maneuver within the system to end up with a lesser effective percentage, effectively flattening out the progressive nature of the tables.
The system you advocate is one in which the higher earners pay the heaviest taxes and those who are the "backbone" (as if the large businesses aren't part of that) as you say shouldn't have to pay as much. Honestly, that is about the way it is in reality - nearly 50% of lower ended wage earners pay nothing in federal taxes.
Your viewpoint is akin to communism which holds dear the mantra of "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need". So far, communism is batting zero.
It might sound great if you are the little guy, but merely serves to stifle will to succeed on the macro scale.
I am not going to swing back on your having lived in other countries. So be it. However, you obviously have some major misunderstandings about how businesses work (in this country anyways), what motivates people to succeed, and the inherent balance in the current system. The system is a tool that can be played in many ways. Some choose not to play and will merely complain about it and others will see huge opportunities and go out and create the next Google, Apple, or Microsoft. The lowest common denominator could be construed to be the degree of motivation one has to use the system to succeed. This is what the whole idea of "The American Dream" is all about. Its not "The American Guarantee". Some paths don't lead to victory - so choose wisely in a flawed system that is still the best one on the face of the planet today.
You are entitled to your viewpoint, though. We all are.
However, taxing someone more heavily as they succeed serves to dampen the motivation to succeed in the first place. As the progressive scale gets bigger, these same folks are able to maneuver within the system to end up with a lesser effective percentage, effectively flattening out the progressive nature of the tables.
The system you advocate is one in which the higher earners pay the heaviest taxes and those who are the "backbone" (as if the large businesses aren't part of that) as you say shouldn't have to pay as much. Honestly, that is about the way it is in reality - nearly 50% of lower ended wage earners pay nothing in federal taxes.
Your viewpoint is akin to communism which holds dear the mantra of "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need". So far, communism is batting zero.
It might sound great if you are the little guy, but merely serves to stifle will to succeed on the macro scale.
I am not going to swing back on your having lived in other countries. So be it. However, you obviously have some major misunderstandings about how businesses work (in this country anyways), what motivates people to succeed, and the inherent balance in the current system. The system is a tool that can be played in many ways. Some choose not to play and will merely complain about it and others will see huge opportunities and go out and create the next Google, Apple, or Microsoft. The lowest common denominator could be construed to be the degree of motivation one has to use the system to succeed. This is what the whole idea of "The American Dream" is all about. Its not "The American Guarantee". Some paths don't lead to victory - so choose wisely in a flawed system that is still the best one on the face of the planet today.
You are entitled to your viewpoint, though. We all are.
I am not advocating communism here, last time I checked Sweden was not a Communist State. I was born and raised in a communist country and believe me it was not a place I would want go back to.
You mention that "taxing someone more heavily as they succeed serves to dampen the motivation to succeed in the first place" I have to disagree with that and here is a couple reasons why:
1. Countries like Japan and most of Europe tax their wealthiest at rate of 90% and yet somehow they manage to produce companies that compete and in many instances thrive with the rest of the world. Last time I checked Toyota was producing cars that were just as good as GM.
2. Until the the 80's USA was taxing Corporations in 70% range and somehow the country did not spiral into severe recession like it has today
(during the lowest tax rates in history)
3. Money is not the main motivator for success or fulfillment in life. After all, even you decided to work one of the lowest paid regional in the country because you loved flying more than a paycheck...
I like money as much the next guy and I am not suggesting 90% tax rates. I am however, saying than an extra 5% would not hurt someone that already has billions in their bank account. I think you are missing the point I am trying to make. I believe in free enterprise but it should not be an anarchy for majority of popultaion and socialism for the wealthiest. Corporations and business keeps the ball rolling but it does not mean that they can't contribute a little more to the people that help create that wealth because otherwise we will see the 1920's all over again.
12-21-2009 | 02:04 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
1. The highest individual income tax rate in Japan is 50%. Although higher than the highest U.S. rate of 35%, Japan doesn’t have state-level income tax, which can be as high as 10% in some states. [Source: KPMG International Income Tax Survey, 2009.] The highest corporate tax rate is only 39.5% in Japan, which is barely higher than the highest corporate tax rate in the United States of 39.3%, and again, you have to add state taxes on top of that in the U.S. In fact, the Untied States and Japan have the highest corporate tax rates of all OECD countries, higher than Canada (20%) Germany (30%) Italy and the UK (both 28%). [Source: United States Treasury Statement for the Record of the Senate Committee on Finance Hearing on International Tax Reform, July 26, 2008.] Only a small number of European countries have a highest marginal individual tax rate above 50%, and again, none of them have state-level taxes.
2. The United States never had a corporate tax rate of 70% in the 1980s. The highest marginal corporate income tax was 46% prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986. [Source: United States Senate, Joint Economic Committee, "The Tax Reform Act of 1986: A Primer," September 17, 2003.]
3. Money is absolutely the main motivator for corporations and business owners who generate, either directly through their own employees and purchases, or indirectly through the taxes they pay, all of the economic output of the country.
I'm also having a hard time understanding why you would impugn "information you gathered from your textbooks." When your doctor diagnoses your illness, do you chastise him for "regurgitating information that you gathered from your textbooks"?
We don't tolerate B.S. in this forum. Does nobody remember Tony Montana?
2. The United States never had a corporate tax rate of 70% in the 1980s. The highest marginal corporate income tax was 46% prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986. [Source: United States Senate, Joint Economic Committee, "The Tax Reform Act of 1986: A Primer," September 17, 2003.]
3. Money is absolutely the main motivator for corporations and business owners who generate, either directly through their own employees and purchases, or indirectly through the taxes they pay, all of the economic output of the country.
I'm also having a hard time understanding why you would impugn "information you gathered from your textbooks." When your doctor diagnoses your illness, do you chastise him for "regurgitating information that you gathered from your textbooks"?
We don't tolerate B.S. in this forum. Does nobody remember Tony Montana?
Last edited by RXS676; 12-21-2009 at 03:28 PM. Reason: Typo corrected
12-21-2009 | 03:05 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
I don't have enough time to completely refute this ridiculous claim, but I did visit website of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, FREEDGAR, and pulled data from the audited Annual Report on Form 10-K of a few frequently villified large corporations. (In each case the most recent filing, the date of which is indicated):
Halliburton (Filed with SEC 2/18/2009): Total income tax expense: $1.2 billion. Total pre-tax income: $3.2 billion. Average tax rate: 38%.
ExxonMobil (Filed with SEC 2/27/2009): Total income tax expense: $36.5 billion. Total pre-tax income: $81.8 billion. Average tax rate: 45%.
United HealthCare (Filed with SEC 2/11/2009): Total income tax expense: $1.6 billion. Total pre-tax income: $4.6 billion. Average tax rate: 36%.
Note: Amounts rounded to save typing time, percent calculations are mine.
I also found a letter from Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office, to the Honorable Kent Conrad, Chairman, Committee on the Budget, United States Senate, written May 18, 2007. Excerpt: "Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or 35%, between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006. The bulk of the revenue increase was associated with corporate income taxes."
Even more interesting, this excerpt from the same letter: "Had revenues grown at the same rate as the overall economy between 2003 and 2006, federal receipts would have increased by only $373 billion."
So not only did federal revenues increase from 2003 to 2006, but the increase was IN EXCESS of what could be attributed solely to economic growth, and driven primarily by corporate income taxes.
Halliburton (Filed with SEC 2/18/2009): Total income tax expense: $1.2 billion. Total pre-tax income: $3.2 billion. Average tax rate: 38%.
ExxonMobil (Filed with SEC 2/27/2009): Total income tax expense: $36.5 billion. Total pre-tax income: $81.8 billion. Average tax rate: 45%.
United HealthCare (Filed with SEC 2/11/2009): Total income tax expense: $1.6 billion. Total pre-tax income: $4.6 billion. Average tax rate: 36%.
Note: Amounts rounded to save typing time, percent calculations are mine.
I also found a letter from Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office, to the Honorable Kent Conrad, Chairman, Committee on the Budget, United States Senate, written May 18, 2007. Excerpt: "Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or 35%, between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006. The bulk of the revenue increase was associated with corporate income taxes."
Even more interesting, this excerpt from the same letter: "Had revenues grown at the same rate as the overall economy between 2003 and 2006, federal receipts would have increased by only $373 billion."
So not only did federal revenues increase from 2003 to 2006, but the increase was IN EXCESS of what could be attributed solely to economic growth, and driven primarily by corporate income taxes.
Last edited by RXS676; 12-21-2009 at 03:31 PM. Reason: Typo corrected
12-21-2009 | 03:44 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
From: Out
"Money is absolutely the main motivator for corporations and business owners who generate, either directly through their own employees and purchases, or indirectly through the taxes they pay, all of the economic output of the country.
If money is absolutelly the main motivator, then how do you explain people that chose to become airline pilots?
I'm also having a hard time understanding why you would impugn "information you gathered from your textbooks." When your doctor diagnoses your illness, do you chastise him for "regurgitating information that you gathered from your textbooks"?
The reason why I keep chastizing him for "regurgitating" is simply becaue that is waht he acused me of doing in the first place.
If money is absolutelly the main motivator, then how do you explain people that chose to become airline pilots?
I'm also having a hard time understanding why you would impugn "information you gathered from your textbooks." When your doctor diagnoses your illness, do you chastise him for "regurgitating information that you gathered from your textbooks"?
The reason why I keep chastizing him for "regurgitating" is simply becaue that is waht he acused me of doing in the first place.
12-21-2009 | 04:28 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
I said that money was the absolute motivator for corporations and business owners, not individuals. I agree, individuals frequently do make career decisions based on things other than money. But airline pilots don't take the lower income for nothing... they take it in exchange for work that is (arguably) a lot more enjoyable that other jobs. I think it's fatuous to think that reducing the profit motive from an employer would have no impact, if the employer is giving increased sacrifice and getting nothing in return.
You were accused of not just regurgitating, but of regurgitating nonsense. I believe it has been shown in my previous posts that that accusation was correct.
You were accused of not just regurgitating, but of regurgitating nonsense. I believe it has been shown in my previous posts that that accusation was correct.
12-21-2009 | 06:27 PM
#27
On Reserve
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
I think SkyHigh is absolutly right.
However, what I believe my value is to my employer may be (and frequently is) not what my employer believes it to be.
12-24-2009 | 10:05 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
From: NU Guy
12-25-2009 | 04:24 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
From: I only fly multi-winged airplanes.
CUT THE TAXES!!!
Imagine what would happen if we all paid around 10% taxes instead of 20% and the corporations only had to pay say 18% instead of the 35% they pay. Why does the govt need that money? So they can send all the politicians to nice 5 star hotels and steak dinners while we struggle to live? That's a lot more money for business to utilize with out any kind of bailout or stimulus package.
Cut taxes, cut govt, and cut the throat of anyone who commits fraud.
Imagine what would happen if we all paid around 10% taxes instead of 20% and the corporations only had to pay say 18% instead of the 35% they pay. Why does the govt need that money? So they can send all the politicians to nice 5 star hotels and steak dinners while we struggle to live? That's a lot more money for business to utilize with out any kind of bailout or stimulus package.
Cut taxes, cut govt, and cut the throat of anyone who commits fraud.
12-25-2009 | 07:28 AM
#30
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Any taxes required from corporations, is simply passed on to the consumer.
Any money made by the corporation is simply used up in cost of tooling, supplies or expansion, or shown as a loss.
Joe Q. Public, pays taxes on his income and again while purchasing the new products…….that’s really how simple it is.
Any money made by the corporation is simply used up in cost of tooling, supplies or expansion, or shown as a loss.
Joe Q. Public, pays taxes on his income and again while purchasing the new products…….that’s really how simple it is.
