Tax - best and worst system's

Those points are addressed in the citation provided.....this thread is about taxes and what are best and worst.....I am pointing out details that may make it best or worst........I never said I wanted unjustified welfare and I am not against welfare reform. However I find any mention of welfare does not bring about any ideas for reform......instead it becomes the scapegoat of every one's witnessed abuse. I do not like welfare abuse. I will say that the recipients have to fill out a lot of information documenting their condition and I am not against that either. When it goes to corporate entities there are often no requirements to justify what they receive and I would also add it is passed out without any goals at all for accomplishing anything as it is often there for the taking arranged by lobbyists in the fine print of bills and actually has no GOAL in many cases. If you aren't liking cool-aid or taxes,,,,,,wouldn't you want to know the greatest areas of waste? attack them first? I also will point out that there was once and I emphasize once when the welfare reform was effective........followed by a long period of inattention until things returned to some of the previous abuse because politicians let things go instead of prescribing necessary changes to prevent abuse. To stop abuse, there has to be an ongoing attention to details, politicians will not look at anything that threatens the interests of the lobbyists but they will readily and easily attack the poor because people sit around drinking and sharing the COOL-AID.

 

My point was that spending in general and welfare in particular are not necessarily related to the tax code. In general poltiicans don't seem to care a great deal where the money comes from and as some have pointed out there isn't always a great deal of care whether the money is even there or not. So delving into the spending issues unless they are clearly related to the tax code is IMO a bit off topic. If for instance we were discussing tax relief for the working poor I can see how welfare could work into that. Comparing it to corporate tax issues just doesn't seem all that reasonable to me.

I do agree that abuse of the system doesn't mean that the system is fundamentally flawed although it may point to significant flaws in its implimentation. I think that applies to the tax code as much or more than it applies to welfare.

I'd like to see some examples of that.

Indeed but for the most part if not in total no one has really gotten into the details here they've just been talking generalities.

We're in agreement there.

That is a gross simplification to the point of confusing the issue rather than addressing it. Politicians look at and implement things that threaten the itnerest of lobbyist on a frequent basis and they also pander to the poor. Indeed I think I've seen more attacks on the rich and federal workers by politicians than I have on the poor. I'm not sure I've seen a single issue yet that didn't have politicians on both sides of it.

 

Hippy.

 

I have seen the $800 billion figure bandied about a few times. It is arrived at by using a very very loose definition of what is actually considered "corporate welfare." The opposite side of this coin is that Federal government welfare passed on to private citizens is roughly $700 million...You can see the breakdown in this 2012 Cato Institute report.
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf

Citing a 13 year old blog, that uses 20 year old figures, and some of their "facts" are rather dubious conclusions.

Going from 9:1(your guesstimate) to 3:1(20 years ago) does not alter your thinking? Now, does the 1.14:1(using a very broad brush to cover both corporate welfare and private citizen welfare) ratio alter your thinking?

Considering that when using a broad brush, the corporate welfare to private citizen welfare ratio is about 1:1, and given that your entire diatribe has focused entirely on "corporate welfare", while pointedly neglecting to mention private citizen welfare...I believe that your position is relatively clear.

 

Only if your drinking their brand of Kool-Aid.

Your expressing your opinion on what is worst about it...

Yes, and you followed this to the "T"...You never mentioned corporate welfare reform, but went right to total abolishment. Still, this is an extreme form of reform, but reform nonetheless...So, your own actions have proved this statement to be false.

As anecdotal evidence, in my experience, the mention of "welfare" always brings up reform...Everyone has their own opinion on how to reform welfare...Corporate, private citizen, or otherwise.

Every one's witnessed abuse...

Witnessed abuse...

Yet we are treated to no lengthy diatribe on this...Just "corporate welfare."

Proof please...

I don't like taxes, but I do consider them a necessary evil.

However, I don't find your brand of Kool-Aid appealing at all

We have yet to even identify the greatest areas of waste, let alone attack them.

All you have done is to identify some great areas. You have yet to make a case that they are indeed wasteful.

?????

How much Kool-Aid have you drunk today? Too much me thinks.

 

In retrospect, looks like most systems don't work.
Sort of funny, how our world's politicians can't agree on anything, other than that hiding money offshore is a good way to stash cash.

 

The United States had a balanced budget as recently as 2001 - achieved by a Republican Congress and Democratic President working together. It's not impossible.

 

Democracy only works when the side that lost accepts the situation and waits for the next election to try and 'put things right'.
If the losing side decides it has the divine right to office and they are going to wreck everything the winning side was elected to do you get chaos.
The far right in the USA will never accept any result other than themselves in complete control.

 

it they are living with mom and dad, they do need to pay taxes.....they have no mortgage, utility, etc bills....it's a lot harder for a parent making 30,000$...they do get a deduction--fair or not--who's to say...but the parents will buy more for the kids, thus paying taxes, etc.....if you have 2 college age workers making 20,000 each and living together they have it 'made'....a lot easier for them than a parent making 40,000$

 

yes, this is wierd....I thought a single person got less of a deduction for himself than a person with a child, some years ago?? plus the parent got the child deduction ......?

 

It is not always the tax, as much as it is what the tax is spent ON.
In my country we cannot even get a definitive budget for things like The Pentagon, CIA, NSA, etc etc.
But just call it...The Military...all our tax dollars to the military = 90% waste, with no benefit to the general populace.
It is a Who's Who of arming "both sides", creating a state of perpetual war, and creating enormous wealth for the few, by dispossession of the many, via their tax dollars.
Couple THAT with regressive tax like Sales and other Flat tax, and you have what my country has, a virtual Pyramid Scheme of an "economy".
There is VERY Little corporate tax. What SHOULD be taxed is sheltered "Legally" via our welfare to the rich tax structure. Corporate tax is at an all time low.....You consumers enjoying all The Price Reductions and Savings.?
Tax "savings" = more profit. Just look at the last 50 years. When did:
Enron
HSBC
Chevron
GE
Zapata Oil
etc etc
EVER band together to Save People money.
The theory of helping the rich (they do not need any MORE help they are already super wealthy) so they can help the citizenry is so archaic and old, it is covered with dust. That is what my country Has Been Doing for two World Wars.
Man, when the Elites train their seals they sure do a good job.
Tiocfaidh Ar La

 

We have the highest corporate taxes in the world. Have you noticed all those corporations going abroad? Can you guess why?

 

Well if I knew the answer to a fair tax system and the economy in general I would be Chairman of Goldman Sachs busy compiling my Golden Parachute and not leaning over a drawing board with a 76 year old back
At least I like my work and so far it has not been offshored..

And Jeff you are so right, I pay taxes on my SS benefits and since I am over 70.5 pay taxes on 401K disbursements which I pay at my current income level. See what you youngsters have to look forward too. ! I ran into a Korean friend the other day and said why is Korean building all these plants in Alabama ? He laughed and said, you haven't heard, you are our China !! Funny and sad,.

Gaines

 

Delaware seems lucrative.
Panama seems, like it's a developing nation, so probably can't afford to be a tax haven.

 

If you are a company or corporation...And they don't have a sales tax(here in PA it is 6%), which is good if you live near the PA/DE border. I'm a little to far away for it to make a meaningful difference.

 

An Ltd registered in England and Wales with an offshore Llc in Delaware...



Holding company...


Could do it for £395 p/m... But, I haven't got £395 p/m (or there abouts) for offshores in Delaware, to invest into a high interest savings, with what?
Nothing after my Ltd company has spent all my earning from my day job on holding companies in Delaware..

If I employed myself as part time, invested into stock that reported a profit so it'll be subject to dividends tax and pay my dividends tax, report no profit at my Ltd where I'd be down as part time so it'll be tax exempt for corporation and income, then legally, any income from my day job, any salary, will then be TAX FREE... Love that... but Employees have rights which makes hiring yourself at your limited liability a pain in the A' - (pension/insurance etc)... and I don't earn enough from my day job for me to want to bother. I figure... a nice salary would be worth protecting..; get me £52k+ (£200 per day or more) and then I'd bother making that £52k+ my tax free take home money of my salary fore having done all that.

 

The first statement is clearly fallacious as any student of history could tell you. As to the second most of the 'arming "both sides"' business is just that business. Various corporations are selling (i.e. not using tax dollars) equipment to various other countries. Said business are also employing Americans and paying taxes as are their employees so that's of considerable benefit to the general populace of the US.

 

The better question is, "where are they going?" Regulation is key. We regulate far less than we used to do. Govt and business used to be adversarial. Now they are in the bed together.

Also, CEO's really don't care about long term corporate growth. The emphasis has changed to profit every year one's tenure. That is a problem.

Also not discussed and what makes corporate tax discussion irrelevant is stock options and insider trading. CEOs made out like bandits during the financial crisis. Basically it is like this.

Buy a stock option (in this case a put) which increases in value as the stock declines. It is like putting in a floor if a hedge was being made. In 08, it wasn't used as a hedge. The CEO wrecks the company and makes unbelievable sums of money. The concept started centuries ago when people would place bets on whether a ship would come back. Captains soon figured out they could make more money betting against the ship coming back. So what do you think happened. Then when bailouts occur or low interest loans put in place, the Captain (in this case CEO buys the now cheap stock or a Call Stock Option (which goes up if stock prices increases).

There is where the real truth is. No high powered execs have gone to jail over this..

From the Wall Street Journal...worth the watch. 3 parts. About 20 minutes in length.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsBV4xi4pa8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsBV4xi4pa8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC8wSkDoRDk&nohtml5=False