Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Siquo]

Crown of fire : corporation usually don't give a shit about your shenanigan : they look at the taxes, at the state of the country, and choose the best one.
We are in a capitalist economy aka everyone who have a chance to take money from someone (mostly from you) will do it. Tell them "moral justification to make someone pay" and they'll die laughing.

This is true, and raises an interesting point: by lowering corporation taxes, you get more money. This is what my country does.
You thought IKEA was Swedish? Not anymore, they chose tax h(e)aven Netherlands to operate from. Originally to keep Shell and Unilever from "outsourcing" to other countries, it's now importing corporations from abroad, making our neighbours both jealous and angry.

So even though morally corporations should be taxed a lot (IMHO, of course), in practice you just drive them away to the less-morally-inclined countries (such as mine).

[Phmcw]

This is true, and raises an interesting point: by lowering corporation taxes, you get more money. This is what my country does.
You thought IKEA was Swedish? Not anymore, they chose tax h(e)aven Netherlands to operate from. Originally to keep Shell and Unilever from "outsourcing" to other countries, it's now importing corporations from abroad, making our neighbours both jealous and angry.

So even though morally corporations should be taxed a lot (IMHO, of course), in practice you just drive them away to the less-morally-inclined countries (such as mine).

It's exactly my point, though things are not that simple.
Listen, think about country infrastructures and service as you think about goods : Netherlands can provide certain things, but certainly not as much protection and contract opportunities than the US, therefore are a good choice for ikea. However Boing would be unwise to do the same thing lest taxes are insanely higher in the US.

By taxing by a certain amount, you loose customer, but there is an optimal taxing point who depend of a lot of factor. You must tax by that amount, just like with any product. Apple is insanely profitable, and it's far from cheap.

Right now, there are loopholes who make that you're nothing short of sponsoring a lot of company in the US, that's just robbery.

[Andir]

Apparently I need to hire a lawyer to remove any ambiguity in my posts before responding (to anyone), but I'll take my chances... hmm, does that mean I need to hire a notary to witness my pressing the post button to legally bind me to the post?  I wonder how they are going to get that little impression device around my monitor to make it official.  I guess I never figured that a forum was a place to go to have my every last word evaluated by a court of law.  Maybe I should feel honored that my word is so scrutinized.  (To be honest, it feels more like sniping, but I'll be optimistic and root for honor.)

If you don't want to tax corporations for fear of losing to competition, and you don't want to tax people due to outsourcing... why not have a graduated sales tax based on the price of the goods being sold.  Inexpensive items would have a very low tax rate while expensive homes/yachts/cars would have a higher rate of tax?  This way the poor are not as penalized for a tax on everyone and the rich can spend more to prove their riches.

Of course, you'll have an initial slowdown of the economy so I wouldn't suggest doing it now... but it solves both of your problems.  (Outsourcing due to higher income tax and corporate taxes that only benefit competitor corporations in foreign countries.)

[Siquo]

Apparently I need to hire a lawyer to remove any ambiguity in my posts before responding (to anyone), but I'll take my chances...

No, just don't argue with someone who argues for a living I thought in that last great discussion that you were right and Truean wrong, for instance, but it has been the other way around as well. When it becomes bickering, just stop and start lurking or something.

[Phmcw]

Apparently I need to hire a lawyer to remove any ambiguity in my posts before responding (to anyone), but I'll take my chances... hmm, does that mean I need to hire a notary to witness my pressing the post button to legally bind me to the post?  I wonder how they are going to get that little impression device around my monitor to make it official.  I guess I never figured that a forum was a place to go to have my every last word evaluated by a court of law.  Maybe I should feel honored that my word is so scrutinized.  (To be honest, it feels more like sniping, but I'll be optimistic and root for honor.)

If you don't want to tax corporations for fear of losing to competition, and you don't want to tax people due to outsourcing... why not have a graduated sales tax based on the price of the goods being sold.  Inexpensive items would have a very low tax rate while expensive homes/yachts/cars would have a higher rate of tax?  This way the poor are not as penalized for a tax on everyone and the rich can spend more to prove their riches.

Of course, you'll have an initial slowdown of the economy so I wouldn't suggest doing it now... but it solves both of your problems.  (Outsourcing due to higher income tax and corporate taxes that only benefit competitor corporations in foreign countries.)

I simply don't trust ultra innovative economic system.
Beside, if you're going to make modification of that size to the economical system, there are other matter you should attend to, such as mitigating speculation and stabilizing the financial cycle.

Edit : I understand your point as "let's use only that tax" not as "let's use that tax" which is commonly done.

[Max White]

If you don't want to tax corporations for fear of losing to competition, and you don't want to tax people due to outsourcing... why not have a graduated sales tax based on the price of the goods being sold.  Inexpensive items would have a very low tax rate while expensive homes/yachts/cars would have a higher rate of tax?  This way the poor are not as penalized for a tax on everyone and the rich can spend more to prove their riches.

I think that what you are describing is like the Australian GST. It works well for us. At first everybody complained, but then when it was rolled out people were ok with it.

[MonkeyHead]

Value added tax is a pain in the UK. It has varied over the years  within certain EU boundaries and now sits at 20% of most purchases. Some things are exempt from VAT - Luxury items are meant to be fully taxed at 20% and essentials are meant to be VAT free. Until 2001 Sanitary Towels were deemed a luxury under tax law and subject to full VAT. Jaffa cakes were a bit of a running joke as originally they were fully taxed as a chocolate biscuit (luxury item apparently), but moved to the cake category after a review which is exempt from VAT (cake isnt a luxury - "Let them eat cake...")...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Value_added_tax

[sluissa]

Apparently I need to hire a lawyer to remove any ambiguity in my posts before responding (to anyone), but I'll take my chances... hmm, does that mean I need to hire a notary to witness my pressing the post button to legally bind me to the post?  I wonder how they are going to get that little impression device around my monitor to make it official.  I guess I never figured that a forum was a place to go to have my every last word evaluated by a court of law.  Maybe I should feel honored that my word is so scrutinized.  (To be honest, it feels more like sniping, but I'll be optimistic and root for honor.)

If you don't want to tax corporations for fear of losing to competition, and you don't want to tax people due to outsourcing... why not have a graduated sales tax based on the price of the goods being sold.  Inexpensive items would have a very low tax rate while expensive homes/yachts/cars would have a higher rate of tax?  This way the poor are not as penalized for a tax on everyone and the rich can spend more to prove their riches.

Of course, you'll have an initial slowdown of the economy so I wouldn't suggest doing it now... but it solves both of your problems.  (Outsourcing due to higher income tax and corporate taxes that only benefit competitor corporations in foreign countries.)

This seems like it would encourage even more cheaply made but replaceable goods. "They're charging me a larger tax on my higher quality but more expensive shoe that comes from a decently taxed country? Well, I guess I'll be saving even MORE money, since the taxes are lower on these cheaply made sweatshop shoes. They might only last me 3 months, but at least they seem cheaper than those shoes that would likely last years, and the taxes are lower now too!"

[GlyphGryph]

Moving on, what about the middle class? They make up the majority of the people in the US, and they hold the most money, all put together, so why not them? Why not the rich? We can play this game all we want, it doesn't matter. An even tax would work just fine if we reduced overall spending.

And the middle class currently pay more as a percentage of income than the rich, in addition

I don't see taxing of corporations as punishment. I just see it as unnecessary, especially if they gained actual liability.

[...] we're taxing them for no real reason. [...] There is neither reason nor need to punish those that do not do wrong.

First... what? Backpedal and retract much? And I guarantee you adding personal liability would make countries leave FAR more than a spot of taxes would.

They kind of are, with how pissed off they can make their customers. Just look at BP after Deepwater Horizon, their stock took a huge hit and hasn't recovered since. Adding on actual liability would be fine by me, too.

They kind of aren't. Just look at the banking collapse. The worst case scenario is that the company goes bankrupt... and everyone involved gets off with something in the order of a million dollars in profit, and are unable to be held liable for the damage they caused. This is the principle element of a corporation - that no matter what you do, you can never come out worse than you went in, financially, no matter how much damage you do in the process.

There is no reason to expect a corporation to pay any more than individuals.

But there's a reason to think they should pay something.

I'd say it's a right for somebody to start a company.

Sure. You do realize companies are taxed at around 25%, more than the general population, right? Only corporations get off scott free (and then, only the wealthy ones)

[Andir]

Apparently I need to hire a lawyer to remove any ambiguity in my posts before responding (to anyone), but I'll take my chances...

No, just don't argue with someone who argues for a living

I honestly don't feel it's right that some people get a "get out of argument free card" or that we should just take their word as indisputable because of their profession.  Maybe that's just me.  I don't break every argument down into mathematical algorithms and debate the merits of said posts based on my profession as a programmer.  This is a forum and anyone would tell you that you don't argue with others using legal doctrine.  Legalese has a place, but it's not in casual conversation.  Leave work at the office....

This seems like it would encourage even more cheaply made but replaceable goods. "They're charging me a larger tax on my higher quality but more expensive shoe that comes from a decently taxed country? Well, I guess I'll be saving even MORE money, since the taxes are lower on these cheaply made sweatshop shoes. They might only last me 3 months, but at least they seem cheaper than those shoes that would likely last years, and the taxes are lower now too!"

It might, but that's easily "satiated" with an import tax.  It would encourage lower retail prices to negate the tax overhead, but I don't believe it would be as detrimental as buying a 3 month shoe vs. a 1 year shoe.  The difference in taxes at that level would be meaningless.

Value added tax is a pain in the UK. It has varied over the years  within certain EU boundaries and now sits at 20% of most purchases. Some things are exempt from VAT - Luxury items are meant to be fully taxed at 20% and essentials are meant to be VAT free. Until 2001 Sanitary Towels were deemed a luxury under tax law and subject to full VAT. Jaffa cakes were a bit of a running joke as originally they were fully taxed as a chocolate biscuit (luxury item apparently), but moved to the cake category after a review which is exempt from VAT (cake isnt a luxury - "Let them eat cake...")...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Value_added_tax

What I suggested was a sales tax on all goods at a graduated rate.

Cheap foods (like most staple products) would be very low/no tax while vehicles, trucks, etc would be a taxed investment.

But I guess the point is that it would have to be graduated or on a sliding scale to prevent excessive taxation for corporations and find a sweet spot where people don't feel overburdened when purchasing clothing, shoes, food, etc. but you increase the taxes over the length of the cost scale.

[Virex]

Problem with graduate rates is that the simplest form I could come up with is something like 1.5-0.5*exp(-x/10.000). Try explaining that one to a plumber

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

Value added tax is a pain in the UK. It has varied over the years  within certain EU boundaries and now sits at 20% of most purchases. Some things are exempt from VAT - Luxury items are meant to be fully taxed at 20% and essentials are meant to be VAT free. Until 2001 Sanitary Towels were deemed a luxury under tax law and subject to full VAT. Jaffa cakes were a bit of a running joke as originally they were fully taxed as a chocolate biscuit (luxury item apparently), but moved to the cake category after a review which is exempt from VAT (cake isnt a luxury - "Let them eat cake...")...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Value_added_tax

That VAT rise finally made it impossible to go for a night out on a tenner :<

[Reelyanoob]

If you don't want to tax corporations for fear of losing to competition, and you don't want to tax people due to outsourcing... why not have a graduated sales tax based on the price of the goods being sold.  Inexpensive items would have a very low tax rate while expensive homes/yachts/cars would have a higher rate of tax?  This way the poor are not as penalized for a tax on everyone and the rich can spend more to prove their riches.

I think that what you are describing is like the Australian GST. It works well for us. At first everybody complained, but then when it was rolled out people were ok with it.

Nope, that's the old "sales tax" that they scrapped when they brought the GST. GST is the set 10%, what he's describing is a system more like sales tax + luxury tax with higher % rates for luxury items, which was abolished in Australia along with sales tax (which was variable depending on the nature of the item, lowest on food for example) when they brought GST in. Note that the guys who got rid of that system represent the wealthy Australians (so they wanted cheaper luxury goods).

[Siquo]

I honestly don't feel it's right that some people get a "get out of argument free card" or that we should just take their word as indisputable because of their profession.  Maybe that's just me.

Apparently, it is. I tried to suggest that if he's not going to stop, and it really is going nowhere, you be the bigger man person. There's already several people whose posts I completely ignore in order to maintain some sanity in this thread.

Edit: ok, "man" was a really unwise choice of words and not at all on purpose.

[RedKing]

Rick Perry is a dumbass. We already knew that. Now it's come out that this isn't a new thing.

Dude's college transcript looks like that guy in your class who's always too hungover to concentrate in class, and is mostly trying to fake it until he can get back to his bros and watch some Jackass. In his four years at Texas A&M (which as a former classmate of Perry's states in the article, is "not exactly Harvard-on-the-Brazos"), he got precisely two A's: EDU 101 and Army Science 201 (an ROTC course). He failed Organic Chemistry, and averaged C's in things like American History, Public Speaking and Accounting. Final GPA (on a 4-pt scale) was a 2.18.

I spent most of my freshman year drunk and shacking up with a psychotic nympho. I did so bad I lost my full ride scholarship and was on academic probation. And yet, I still finished nearly a full point higher than Rick Perry.