Americans agree: The rich should pay higher

[questionmark]

I still think closing loopholes is a better answer than raising taxes in general. Instead of raising the taxes of the rich, say, 3%.. Why not just close up the loopholes so they can't squirm out of what they already owe? This article is the sort of thing I'm talking about. I know the article is about corporations instead of private taxes, but it still applies. Why raise the tax on the rich in general if only some rich are squirming out of what they owe? Even if a blanket raise on the rich did work.. For the ones not paying correctly, even if the taxes were raised, they would still just keep using the loopholes to avoid those raised taxes too. Why should the rich actually paying their taxes correctly have to pay more to cover for those not paying correctly?

Because, once they want the money they are paying in taxes, they simply incorporate on the Cayman Islands and extend their tongue towards the IRS. I it were me, I would have a 0% corporate tax and increase the tax of those earning over $500.000 a year proportionally to their earnings. Individuals do not have the luxury to incorporate abroad.

[rashore]

No corporate tax at all, really? Why?

[questionmark]

No corporate tax at all, really? Why?

Because to the contrary of corporations Americans have to pay US taxes regardless of where they live (that includes those living in Greece, sadly). Corporations at the end of the day belong to individuals, that way we could make sure the taxes on earnings are paid.

[rashore]

Because to the contrary of corporations Americans have to pay US taxes regardless of where they live (that includes those living in Greece, sadly). Corporations at the end of the day belong to individuals, that way we could make sure the taxes on earnings are paid.

Well that's an interesting notion. I guess I kind of feel differently. I think corporations should be accountable for their profits no matter where in the world their offices are if they want to claim they are a US company. Kind of how a US citizen is accountable for their taxes, no matter where they live in the world.

[questionmark]

Well that's an interesting notion. I guess I kind of feel differently. I think corporations should be accountable for their profits no matter where in the world their offices are if they want to claim they are a US company. Kind of how a US citizen is accountable for their taxes, no matter where they live in the world.

Even Blackwater claims to be an Arab company nowadays... and Halliburton was a Cayman Islander last I checked.

[Wookietim]

Even Blackwater claims to be an Arab company nowadays... and Halliburton was a Cayman Islander last I checked.

Silly question...

Since the Supreme Court decided (Wrongly in my opinion, but it was their decision so it's a reality now) that Corporations have a right to free speech, what happens when these entities that have a right to free speech decide to use it... but don't pay taxes? Doesn't that sort of lead to a bad place : An set of entities that have the rights of citizens but none of the responsibilities of citizens?

[questionmark]

Silly question...

Since the Supreme Court decided (Wrongly in my opinion, but it was their decision so it's a reality now) that Corporations have a right to free speech, what happens when these entities that have a right to free speech decide to use it... but don't pay taxes? Doesn't that sort of lead to a bad place : An set of entities that have the rights of citizens but none of the responsibilities of citizens?

Not necessarily, we still distinguish between legal and natural persons. There is no reason why a natural person should have the same rights (and vice versa) as legal persons. Once a corporation is legally a natural person that would bring complications though.

Could you imagine GM suing for the right to marry or adopt children?

[Wookietim]

Not necessarily, we still distinguish between legal and natural persons. There is no reason why a natural person should have the same rights (and vice versa) as legal persons. Once a corporation is legally a natural person that would bring complications though.

Could you imagine GM suing for the right to marry or adopt children?

Well, there you have it. When corporations have the same rights as "Real" people do, then we have these problems. People are already suggesting corporations have the right to bear arms, for example... They have the right to free speech as of now...

But if we don't tax them yet give them the right to free speech by way of money (Which is what the argument rested on - that a corporation spending money on political ads represented free speech) then what would happen is that entities that already have much more money than any of the real people do suddenly have more... and therefore they end up with a mega-megaphone to shout their "Speech" from while the real people see their voices dwindling into obscurity.

I point you towards Michigan and Benton Harbor right now. The state has appointed a single person who has replaced the city council and mayor and every other elected official. He is being paid $11,000/month to run that city, unilaterally. Except the problem is that their law does not preclude him from also working for others at the same time. What happens when a corporation decides to take this money and put him on the payroll? Would that be better if the corporation has more or less money?

P.S. - I am bringing up Benton Harbor mainly because I want to keep this issue in front of as many people as I can. Technically it's legal what the governor did. But it is not ethical, since he disenfranchised every voter in that city with a stroke of a pen.

Edited May 3, 2011 by Wookietim

[rashore]

Even Blackwater claims to be an Arab company nowadays... and Halliburton was a Cayman Islander last I checked.

Ok, so I had to ask my hubby who those two companies are. His reply- big government contractors.. I was like, WTF? Those are the kinds of companies you have to bid against? That's a big effing loophole that could be closed.. Why in the heck isn't the government using it's own contractors? I can understand occasional outsourcing, but if we got it in house, we should utilize that.

Ok, that's extra frustrating. I guess I didn't realize, lol. See on that point I don't see it as sewing up the tax getting loopholes but rather a case of sewing up tax spending loopholes- and yeah, I think that should happen before tax cuts. I just don't think it helps a ton to increase getting taxes or spending taxes without closing the abuses and loopholes first. Closing those would probably generate more dollars than raising and cutting, though I think that could happen in some areas too.

And heck no, if those companies are not US companies, they sure should not be entitled to any sort of US citizen rights, like the freedom of speech. If their nation is ok with it, and our nation and their nations can agree on those rights, then maybe.

Anywho.. Yeah, Benton Harbor is an interesting example of yucky.. One that I think I will have to refrain on starting to comment on because I know I will get into a rant and get way too off topic. But yep, there is IMO a lot of rich taking advantage there, and legally getting away with it, while there really hasn't been much of a bonus to the poor.

[Wookietim]

Ok, so I had to ask my hubby who those two companies are. His reply- big government contractors.. I was like, WTF? Those are the kinds of companies you have to bid against? That's a big effing loophole that could be closed.. Why in the heck isn't the government using it's own contractors? I can understand occasional outsourcing, but if we got it in house, we should utilize that.

Ok, that's extra frustrating. I guess I didn't realize, lol. See on that point I don't see it as sewing up the tax getting loopholes but rather a case of sewing up tax spending loopholes- and yeah, I think that should happen before tax cuts. I just don't think it helps a ton to increase getting taxes or spending taxes without closing the abuses and loopholes first. Closing those would probably generate more dollars than raising and cutting, though I think that could happen in some areas too.

And heck no, if those companies are not US companies, they sure should not be entitled to any sort of US citizen rights, like the freedom of speech. If their nation is ok with it, and our nation and their nations can agree on those rights, then maybe.

Anywho.. Yeah, Benton Harbor is an interesting example of yucky.. One that I think I will have to refrain on starting to comment on because I know I will get into a rant and get way too off topic. But yep, there is IMO a lot of rich taking advantage there, and legally getting away with it, while there really hasn't been much of a bonus to the poor.

Well, the thing is that they are only technically not US companies... They are both pretty slimy companies, but they are US companies (To ring a bell for you : Blackwater - I think that they are called "Xi" now - is the company that did the security in Iraq and killed multiple civilians until the Iraqi govt told them that they had to leave... and Haliburton is best known for having it's hands in everything and - purely by coincidence mind you - having a guy called "Dick Cheney" on it's board...). The problem is that once a company becomes big enough it starts playing musical chairs with where it's offices technically are located. Usually, when a company is "Located" in the Caymans, that really means that there is a mailbox that they own there... and they can use that to avoid paying US taxes.

[questionmark]

and - purely by coincidence mind you - having a guy called "Dick Cheney" on it's board...

Which is also most probably the cause that BP gets blamed for a little spill caused by a deep water drilling rig called Deep Water Horizon and we get the truth in little slices (i.e. safety procedures not followed, faulty cement used, inspections overdue...)

[Blizno]

It wasn't an argument. Chill.

I wasn't saying that you or anyone was advocating for that. I was making the very valid point that even increasing taxation to it's theoretical limit - all income above 250K (for couples) confiscated - wouldn't solve the problem...

Harte

"It wasn't an argument. Chill."

Of course it was an argument. You spoke of raising taxes on earnings above $250k/year to 100%.

You are suggesting that the non-Republicans want to raise taxes on earnings above $250k/year to 100%.

If you meant anything else, why would you even write this extremely inflammatory diatribe?

Since nobody has suggested "increasing taxation to it's [sic] theoretical limit", your rant is completely unwarranted and is useless to this discussion.

Your rant was intended only to cause rage. Don't do that. There is far too much rage in US politics already. Don't add to it.

[Harte]

"It wasn't an argument. Chill."

Of course it was an argument. You spoke of raising taxes on earnings above $250k/year to 100%.

You are suggesting that the non-Republicans want to raise taxes on earnings above $250k/year to 100%.

It was a point I was making. Raising taxes doesn't solve the problem. Even raising them to their theoretical limit.

Please quote where I claimed that anyone had even suggested, much less supported, such a thing.

If you meant anything else, why would you even write this extremely inflammatory diatribe?

You are now pretending that you can't understand what I said in the context that I said it.

Since nobody has suggested "increasing taxation to it's [sic] theoretical limit", your rant is completely unwarranted and is useless to this discussion.

It is by no means unwarranted and certainly not useless.

Arguments have been made for raising taxes. Made by people here that appear to think that uis all that needs to be done.

I showeed that even raising taxes to an absurd degree (100% confiscaqtion over 250K) doesn't get us out of debt.

3%, 10%, small marginal rate hikes, all of these are far smaller than complete confiscation, and even complete confiscation doesn't solve the problem.

Harte