Who's not paying any taxes?

[luv2read]

The Earlybird: Headlines
NationalJournal.com (http://www.nationaljournal.com/) August 12, 2008


"Most U.S. corporations and foreign companies doing business in the United States pay no federal income tax, according to a new report from Congress," AP (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hK6PvUKazIU7T7oE7Qe-cJwP5rogD92GGU780) reports. "The study by the Government Accountability Office, expected to be released" today, "said two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, and about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period."

[Silverbird]

How much are they paying in payroll related taxes?

[luv2read]

How much are they paying in payroll related taxes?
The same as I am?

[Show-me]

How much are they paying in payroll related taxes?

Exactly! Charging taxes to companies is just "embedding" additional taxes on the people that are buying the finished goods. Get real folks!

U.S. cooperate tax rate is the second highest in the world. Make it the lowest in the world and you will offset the labor cost considerably. Who's number one? Japan, and look what it has done to their economy.

GO FAIRTAX!

[Show-me]

Why would a company want to pay any more taxes than a individual?

Am I greedy because I used the massive, BS, tax code to limit my tax liability? NO!

Are seniors that retire to retirement income friendly States greedy because they want to keep more of their money? NO!

I paid almost no Federal tax for 2006 and only about $700 for 2007. That does not make me greedy or poor, just more willing than most to live cheaper to avoid pay a ton to a government that will **** it away.

Git rid of the tax code and tax people on what they spend. That will include prostitutes, drug dealer, criminals, undocumented workers, etc. Those people don't fill a return on their income. It would fairly tax anyone who decided to spend their money on crap they probably don't need anyways.

Sorry if it sounds like a rant, but IF you want jobs to start coming back to America you got to make it worth while for companies to do it. If you want to fairly tax a guy that makes too much of a CEO salary and spends it on a $10,000 shower curtain. Charge him 23% Federal FairTax on the shower curtain.

[Silverbird]

Ah, yes, consumption taxes. I like them because like your local sales tax, you get instant sticker shock. It also encourages savings.:nuts:

[Show-me]

Ah, yes, consumption taxes. I like them because like your local sales tax, you get instant sticker shock. It also encourages savings.:nuts:

Good point! We have built a system that encourages spending even if you have to borrow it to spend it.:nuts:

[luv2read]

EXACTLY! Our parents and our generation grew up under a system that encouraged SAVING. The current system encourages SPENDING and it's partly responsible for the current situation. I read a wonderful article about this and I think it's posted, I'll have to see if I can find it.

[alevin]

YeehaH. I read the Fair Tax book a couple years ago, became a convert, passed it on to a friend with inherited family trust fund. Haven't asked him yet what he thinks of the idea, don't know if he's read it yet either. I have read some contra-indications somewhere in the past year tho that it wouldn't help the middle class the way I was thinking it would. don't recall the counter arguments against FT, think they were posted in a web forum or article or blog somewhere.

[Show-me]

YeehaH. I read the Fair Tax book a couple years ago, became a convert, passed it on to a friend with inherited family trust fund. Haven't asked him yet what he thinks of the idea, don't know if he's read it yet either. I have read some contra-indications somewhere in the past year tho that it wouldn't help the middle class the way I was thinking it would. don't recall the counter arguments against FT, think they were posted in a web forum or article or blog somewhere.

Yes, I have determined that I would have to pay my fair share of taxes. That's ok if I don't have to buy tax software, keep receipts, worry about deadlines, etc. Bring it on!

[Viva_La_Migra]

If you want to fairly tax a guy that makes too much of a CEO salary and spends it on a $10,000 shower curtain. Charge him 23% Federal FairTax on the shower curtain.
Twenty-three percent seems kinda high for a national sales tax, don't you think? Ten percent should be plenty!

[Silverbird]

Twenty-three percent seems kinda high for a national sales tax, don't you think? Ten percent should be plenty!
Especially since you also get hit by local taxes. Maybe make it 15 percent Fed + whatever sales tax local state.

[Show-me]

Twenty-three percent seems kinda high for a national sales tax, don't you think? Ten percent should be plenty!

Not really it is on just what you spend and you get a standard prebate every month to offset basic necessities. Also, no social security tax off the top.

I will add more after lunch and class.

[camper65]

If it is true what they say that the consumer accounts for 70% of GDP. Then it seems to me that in today’s society we have it up side down. After all, when all is said and done, the wealthy eventually derive their money from the working people and the products they produce and consume. If then that is the case, doesn’t it make since to reduce taxes on those not so affluent. Would that not increase GDP thus providing a benefit to all citizens. The wealthy would realize greater cash flow from increased spending that would offset their increased tax burden and the rest of us would realize an increased living standard.
As an after thought to that, let us not forget that one of the excuses for the Bush tax cuts was that it would reduce the tendency of the rich to hide their income from the IRS. (Remember?) But as was reported by the IRS several weeks ago, some 100 billion dollars in taxes is hidden in overseas accounts. That’s money you and I have to come up with! (Thanks UBS)

[luv2read]

Note to self: Appoint Camper65 to staff position in Department of Commerce.

[Silverbird]

Note to self: Appoint Camper65 to staff position in Department of Commerce.Not Commerce, no clout, we don't control any money. All we can do is write you a nice analysis that can easily be ignored or never published (we've been grumbling about taxing R&D and wages, and overseas tax breaks for a while now). Treasury is better, they have control over taxes.

[Show-me]

If it is true what they say that the consumer accounts for 70% of GDP. Then it seems to me that in today’s society we have it up side down. After all, when all is said and done, the wealthy eventually derive their money from the working people and the products they produce and consume. If then that is the case, doesn’t it make since to reduce taxes on those not so affluent. Would that not increase GDP thus providing a benefit to all citizens. The wealthy would realize greater cash flow from increased spending that would offset their increased tax burden and the rest of us would realize an increased living standard.
As an after thought to that, let us not forget that one of the excuses for the Bush tax cuts was that it would reduce the tendency of the rich to hide their income from the IRS. (Remember?) But as was reported by the IRS several weeks ago, some 100 billion dollars in taxes is hidden in overseas accounts. That’s money you and I have to come up with! (Thanks UBS)


That would be great, but you have to entice companies to keep their factories in the U.S. in order for citizens to have disposable income and hopefully some savings. The U.S. companies have to pay payroll tax for labor, cooperate tax on profits, and then individual income tax from their salaries. Why do that when you can move everything south and get cheaper labor? Or as a investor, invest in a company overseas to increase the return on my investment.

AND, THIS IS THE BIG POINT!!! EMBEDDED TAX. Embedded tax is the hidden tax consumers pay for a finished product. If you reduce taxes for lower wage earners and raise the tax for corporations and higher wage earners, they will add that figure to the end cost of the finished product. You are paying the tax for them only it is called overhead now. You are not screwing them you're screwing yourself by forcing them to raise the price of the product.

Just eliminate any kind of income, payroll, or cooperate tax and tax the finished "new" product only. If you want the nick knack so bad pay the FairTax.

[Frixxxx]

.......But as was reported by the IRS several weeks ago, some 100 billion dollars in taxes is hidden in overseas accounts......
Stop telling everyone where my money is!!!!!!


Note to self: Appoint Camper65 to staff position in Department of Commerce.
If he can keep his comments succinct and informative, he should also write your presidential speeches.
:cool:

[Show-me]

Twenty-three percent seems kinda high for a national sales tax, don't you think? Ten percent should be plenty!


Especially since you also get hit by local taxes. Maybe make it 15 percent Fed + whatever sales tax local state.

On the surface the 23% number looks big, but you have to compare income and payroll tax versus FairTax on new goods purchased. You are being taxed big time before you even get your paycheck.

Difference basically is a tax on total income verses tax on what you spend on "new" products. You get your entire gross income. Take home pay would be a thing of the past as it would ALL be take home pay.

From FairTax.org http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_basics_thumbnail



The FairTax strategy is revenue neutral: Neither raise nor lower taxes so consumer costs remain stable.
The FairTax pays for all current government operations, including Social Security and Medicare. Government revenues are more stable and predictable than with the federal income tax because consumption is a more constant revenue base than is income.
If you were in a 23-percent income tax bracket, the federal government would take $23 out of your paycheck for every $100 you made. With the FairTax, if the federal government gets $23 out of every $100 spent in America, the same total revenue is delivered to the federal government. This is revenue neutrality. So, instead of paycheck-earning Americans paying 7.65 percent of their paychecks in Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes, plus an average of 18 percent of their paychecks in federal income tax, for a total of about 25.65 percent, consumers in America pay only $23 out of every $100. Or about 30 percent at the cash register when they elect to spend on new goods or services for their own personal consumption. And this tax is collected only on spending above the federal poverty level, providing important progressivity.

[Silverbird]

Employee/Consumer: "I can't afford your prices, I've got to buy Nobrand Cheepo."

U.S. Company: "I can't afford to keep you employed with these employee expenses. Especially health care benefits." Chop chop chop...

Employee/Consumer: "I can't afford to work for you without health care benefits."

U.S. Company: "I can't afford your payroll taxes and health care benefits if I want to lower prices. I'll just subcontract Nobrand Cheepo to make Mybrand. ByeBye."

Employee/Consumer: "If I had a job I could afford your brand now.":toung:

[Show-me]

Silverbird,
Don't for get pensions! Can't afford pensions, because of taxes. Fund your own retirement.

[Show-me]

Just remember smart wealthy people will alway find a place to make the maximum return on their investment even if they have to go overseas. It is a global market place. We need to make it more profitable for them invest here than abroad.


Look a Buffet and Gates. They continue to look overseas when there is no good values in the at home.

[Frixxxx]

Silverbird,
Don't for get pensions! Can't afford pensions, because of taxes. Fund your own retirement.
And to keep the circle going:

Employee/employer: "I would put money into your investment program, but you won't let me protect it!":cool:

[Show-me]

And to keep the circle going:

Employee/employer: "I would put money into your investment program, but you won't let me protect it!":cool:

Protected from what?

[Silverbird]

Protected from what?The Pension Benefit Guarantee Program. :toung: which the Bush administration "forced to move from mostly safe bonds into 45% equity holdings, a move that occured just before the stock market really headed down." Market Watch, "The True Cost of America's Bail-Outs" August 12, 2008.

Employer to Employee: "We'll just move your pensions into our stock to keep those short-timers from messing up our company. It keeps you in a job, right?"