|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 16 2014 19:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2014 15:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 16 2014 14:30 Danglars wrote:On July 16 2014 12:51 IgnE wrote:On July 16 2014 12:32 Danglars wrote:On July 16 2014 09:42 Wolfstan wrote:On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote:Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate. It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return
>>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit ....
And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down. I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role? I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod. I am definitely in the hawkish camp. Bubble hasn't blown up to painful levels yet, but it's time to think about restocking the chamber for when the decline happens. I hope we're not back hearing how nobody could've expected x, y, and z if and when it gets painful. I don't know if I can stand another round of ass-covering after hearing glib talk out of the "consensus view" of the financial industry. On July 16 2014 10:03 IgnE wrote:On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote:Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate. It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return
>>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit ....
And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down. I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role? I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod. The obvious answer is that there is no recovery, man. It doesn't exist. American household wealth for the bottom 90% is below what it was in 1983. Source. That's right, the bottom 90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago. The housing market "recovery" is a farce, as the bottom 90% of the housing market is below 2007 prices, while the very top of the housing market accounts for all of the supposed gains in the last 5 years. Stocks and asset prices are making a recovery, but that's because the only place left for investment dollars to go is into speculation. American, and world, demand has been saturated, which is what you would expect to happen when the vast majority of people in the country have lost wealth, while the top decile or the top 1% have accumulated more wealth to use in purely speculative or extractive investments. There's nowhere to go from here. The capital can't come out because there is nowhere for the capital to find a return. So now that you believe this recovery to be wholly unprecedented in modern times, where does the blame lie (and if its in multiple parties, who deserves the larger shares)? The linked 12-minute dialogue does touch on reserve policy strengthening gains in the upper echelons at the cost of growth in broader areas than the stock-owning class. What does "wholly unprecedented" mean? I don't think I would go that far. At this point after a depression, every single recovery in the last 50 years has posted better numbers--I don't care which recovery metric you cite. You'd have to go back to World War 2 to find the same change in employment/labor force participation this far down the road. Job creation is the same story (I used BLS numbers on job openings for this). Growth rates are about as abysmal, you can look a little more into the numbers here. The obvious answer is that there is no recovery, man. It doesn't exist. I couldn't find a single other time period this far after the official end of recession with similar change in housing markets. Q2-2009 and now we're talking at Q2-2014? I've been looking through several metrics and haven't found one where 5 years later you might find no recovery, man. Could there be a more emblematic example of the problem than a 'non-existent' recovery that results in the Dow (and plenty of the rest of the market) hitting all time highs? Does the stock market being high give bread on the table of the lower and middle class? I believe the point that Igne is trying to make is that the recovery is almost only effecting the upper class and the rest is left behind in the mud. High stock markets do nothing for them.
And thats exactly what Greenhorizon said?
|
On July 16 2014 20:08 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2014 19:59 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2014 15:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 16 2014 14:30 Danglars wrote:On July 16 2014 12:51 IgnE wrote:On July 16 2014 12:32 Danglars wrote:On July 16 2014 09:42 Wolfstan wrote:On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote:Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate. It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return
>>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit ....
And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down. I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role? I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod. I am definitely in the hawkish camp. Bubble hasn't blown up to painful levels yet, but it's time to think about restocking the chamber for when the decline happens. I hope we're not back hearing how nobody could've expected x, y, and z if and when it gets painful. I don't know if I can stand another round of ass-covering after hearing glib talk out of the "consensus view" of the financial industry. On July 16 2014 10:03 IgnE wrote:On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote:Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate. It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return
>>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit ....
And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down. I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role? I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod. The obvious answer is that there is no recovery, man. It doesn't exist. American household wealth for the bottom 90% is below what it was in 1983. Source. That's right, the bottom 90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago. The housing market "recovery" is a farce, as the bottom 90% of the housing market is below 2007 prices, while the very top of the housing market accounts for all of the supposed gains in the last 5 years. Stocks and asset prices are making a recovery, but that's because the only place left for investment dollars to go is into speculation. American, and world, demand has been saturated, which is what you would expect to happen when the vast majority of people in the country have lost wealth, while the top decile or the top 1% have accumulated more wealth to use in purely speculative or extractive investments. There's nowhere to go from here. The capital can't come out because there is nowhere for the capital to find a return. So now that you believe this recovery to be wholly unprecedented in modern times, where does the blame lie (and if its in multiple parties, who deserves the larger shares)? The linked 12-minute dialogue does touch on reserve policy strengthening gains in the upper echelons at the cost of growth in broader areas than the stock-owning class. What does "wholly unprecedented" mean? I don't think I would go that far. At this point after a depression, every single recovery in the last 50 years has posted better numbers--I don't care which recovery metric you cite. You'd have to go back to World War 2 to find the same change in employment/labor force participation this far down the road. Job creation is the same story (I used BLS numbers on job openings for this). Growth rates are about as abysmal, you can look a little more into the numbers here. The obvious answer is that there is no recovery, man. It doesn't exist. I couldn't find a single other time period this far after the official end of recession with similar change in housing markets. Q2-2009 and now we're talking at Q2-2014? I've been looking through several metrics and haven't found one where 5 years later you might find no recovery, man. Could there be a more emblematic example of the problem than a 'non-existent' recovery that results in the Dow (and plenty of the rest of the market) hitting all time highs? Does the stock market being high give bread on the table of the lower and middle class? I believe the point that Igne is trying to make is that the recovery is almost only effecting the upper class and the rest is left behind in the mud. High stock markets do nothing for them. And thats exactly what Greenhorizon said?
Derp. Your right I miss read his comment ><
|
I just read that Cuba and Russia signed an agreement. Russian troops are returning to Cuba- radar and surveillance duties. Couldnt find english sources yet.
Thoughts if true?
Edit: Russia removed its last soldier from Cuba in 2001. Now they are returning. Base going to be in Lourdes (near Havana). Russia also canceled 32mld of Cuban debt.
|
On July 16 2014 20:47 Silvanel wrote:
I just read that Cuba and Russia signed an agreement. Russian troops are returning to Cuba- radar and surveillance duties. Couldnt find english sources yet.
Thoughts if true?
Edit: Russia removed its last soldier from Cuba in 2001. Now they are returning. Base going to be in Lourdes (near Havana). Russia also canceled 32mld of Cuban debt.
Assuming its true, Pointless chest beating by Russia and in line with their actions so far in trying to pretend they are a global power. Nothing America has to be even slightly concerned about.
|
Finnaly english source: http://rt.com/news/173092-russia-sigint-facility-cuba/
Key points:
"Moscow and Havana have reportedly reached an agreement on reopening the SIGINT facility in Lourdes, Cuba - once Russia’s largest foreign base of this kind - which was shut down in 2001 due to financial problems and under US pressure
When operational, the facility was manned by thousands of military and intelligence personnel, whose task was to intercept signals coming from and to the US territory and to provide communication for the Russian vessels in the western hemisphere.
[...]
No detail of schedule for the reopening the facility, which currently hosts a branch of Cuba’s University of Information Science, was immediately available. One of the principle news during Putin’s visit to Havana was Moscow’s writing off of the majority of the old Cuban debt to Russia. The facility is expected to require fewer personnel than it used to, because modern surveillance equipment can do many functions now automatically"
I wonder what US reaction will be. Will be it seen as another failure of Obamas foreign policy?
|
Team Obama wants ‘economic patriotism’ — a ban on business HQ heading overseas
The White House sent out a letter to the Senate Finance Committee late Tuesday, calling on Congress to consider a “new sense of economic patriotism” — code for a ban on big businesses moving headquarters overseas to save on taxes.
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew penned the letter to Chairman Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, requesting congressional members to set a rule against U.S.-based companies from enacting “inversion” transactions simply to change their tax domicile and save on taxes, Politico reported.
“The president has called for undertaking business tax reform as a way to improve the investment climate in the United States and to support the creation and retention of high-quality American jobs,” Mr. Lew wrote. “What we need as a nation is a new sense of economic patriotism, where we all rise or fall together. … We should not be providing support for corporations that seek to shift their profits overseas to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.”
The letter comes as U.S. drug manufacturers Abbvie and Mylan have plotted corporate charts to do just that.
Mr. Lew wants the legislation he requested to be retroactive to May, which would effectively block Abbvie and Mylan from making the move, Politico reported.
Currently, the corporate tax rate stands at 35 percent, among the highest in the world. Mr. Lew said he wants a lower rate — but that Congress should first put the stop to inversions, and then deal with the rate issue, Politico reported.
The White House push to ban inversions is supported by several top Democrats.
Source
|
The article doesn't go into great detail how that's supposed to look, but if it puts an end to these tax evasion manoeuvres that many companies like to do it's a pretty great idea.
|
Taxing corporations is dumb anyway. Get rid of or greatly reduce corporate taxes and increase it on individuals to offset the loss.
|
On July 17 2014 01:40 xDaunt wrote:
Taxing corporations is dumb anyway. Get rid of or greatly reduce corporate taxes and increase it on individuals to offset the loss.
wat
could you explain the logic behind this (if there is any)
|
I actually kind of agree with the general idea of taxing income and wealth instead of corporations. (because high taxes on businesses can be tough for small and middle sizes companies) but on the other hand reality has also shown that tax cuts for businesses never get balanced out with taxes for high income earners.
Instead goods & services taxes go up to compensate for the loss which is idiotic because it hurts low income earners and these taxes are in their nature regressive.
|
On July 17 2014 01:48 YoureFired wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 01:40 xDaunt wrote:
Taxing corporations is dumb anyway. Get rid of or greatly reduce corporate taxes and increase it on individuals to offset the loss. wat could you explain the logic behind this (if there is any)
Taxing corporations separately creates distortions in behavior, the most notable of which is relocating out of country to nations (or other states) that don't tax corporations. These problems are entirely unnecessary because corporate profits are already taxed when those profits flow to owners and employees as capital gains and income respectively. One could very easily adjust the tax rates on individuals and eliminate corporate taxes to remain revenue neutral. Given how horrifically complicated our tax code is, anything that simplifies it is a step in the right direction.
|
On July 17 2014 01:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 01:48 YoureFired wrote:On July 17 2014 01:40 xDaunt wrote:
Taxing corporations is dumb anyway. Get rid of or greatly reduce corporate taxes and increase it on individuals to offset the loss. wat could you explain the logic behind this (if there is any) Taxing corporations separately creates distortions in behavior, the most notable of which is relocating out of country to nations (or other states) that don't tax corporations. These problems are entirely unnecessary because corporate profits are already taxed when those profits flow to owners and employees as capital gains and income respectively. One could very easily adjust the tax rates on individuals and eliminate corporate taxes to remain revenue neutral. Given how horrifically complicated our tax code is, anything that simplifies it is a step in the right direction.
Wont this simply mean that money is instead hoarded in the companies pocket instead of the individual?
|
Well keeping money in corporations is generally not bad, the problem I see is that (at least here in Germany) nearly half of all business are partnerships and it's not really distinguishable how much money is actually in the corporation and how much money is private income. For what xDaunt is proposing to work you would first make sure that you can clearly tell when people withdraw money from their business.
|
On July 17 2014 02:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 01:57 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2014 01:48 YoureFired wrote:On July 17 2014 01:40 xDaunt wrote:
Taxing corporations is dumb anyway. Get rid of or greatly reduce corporate taxes and increase it on individuals to offset the loss. wat could you explain the logic behind this (if there is any) Taxing corporations separately creates distortions in behavior, the most notable of which is relocating out of country to nations (or other states) that don't tax corporations. These problems are entirely unnecessary because corporate profits are already taxed when those profits flow to owners and employees as capital gains and income respectively. One could very easily adjust the tax rates on individuals and eliminate corporate taxes to remain revenue neutral. Given how horrifically complicated our tax code is, anything that simplifies it is a step in the right direction. Wont this simply mean that money is instead hoarded in the companies pocket instead of the individual?
Why would the corporation horde the money? You have to keep in mind what a corporation is. It's a construct for doing business and making money for its owners. Every dollar that stays in the corporation is money that the owners aren't realizing in profits on their investment. Owners want and need to realize a gain at some point. For this reason, a corporation won't hang on to money if it doesn't have a legitimate, business-related, strategic reason to do so
|
On July 17 2014 02:08 Nyxisto wrote:
Well keeping money in corporations is generally not bad, the problem I see is that (at least here in Germany) nearly half of all business are partnerships and it's not really distinguishable how much money is actually in the corporation and how much money is private income. For what xDaunt is proposing to work you would first make sure that you can clearly tell when people withdraw money from their business.
That's already done. The methods for taking money out of a business are "dividends," "capital gains" (from a sale), and "wages/salary." All three are already reported.
|
On July 17 2014 02:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 02:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 17 2014 01:57 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2014 01:48 YoureFired wrote:On July 17 2014 01:40 xDaunt wrote:
Taxing corporations is dumb anyway. Get rid of or greatly reduce corporate taxes and increase it on individuals to offset the loss. wat could you explain the logic behind this (if there is any) Taxing corporations separately creates distortions in behavior, the most notable of which is relocating out of country to nations (or other states) that don't tax corporations. These problems are entirely unnecessary because corporate profits are already taxed when those profits flow to owners and employees as capital gains and income respectively. One could very easily adjust the tax rates on individuals and eliminate corporate taxes to remain revenue neutral. Given how horrifically complicated our tax code is, anything that simplifies it is a step in the right direction. Wont this simply mean that money is instead hoarded in the companies pocket instead of the individual? Why would the corporation horde the money? You have to keep in mind what a corporation is. It's a construct for doing business and making money for its owners. Every dollar that stays in the corporation is money that the owners aren't realizing in profits on their investment. Owners want and need to realize a gain at some point. For this reason, a corporation won't hang on to money if it doesn't have a legitimate, business-related, strategic reason to do so
Does it? If I own company X (51% shares or whatever) and it makes a million a year yet I only spend 500k a year what reason do I have to take the other 500k out of the company if I pay taxes when I do and no taxes if I don't?
Yes this wont apply to every business but it will apply to enough to be a problem.
ps.
Your American, you know corporations are not a construct for business, their people.
|
On July 17 2014 02:28 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 02:20 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2014 02:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 17 2014 01:57 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2014 01:48 YoureFired wrote:On July 17 2014 01:40 xDaunt wrote:
Taxing corporations is dumb anyway. Get rid of or greatly reduce corporate taxes and increase it on individuals to offset the loss. wat could you explain the logic behind this (if there is any) Taxing corporations separately creates distortions in behavior, the most notable of which is relocating out of country to nations (or other states) that don't tax corporations. These problems are entirely unnecessary because corporate profits are already taxed when those profits flow to owners and employees as capital gains and income respectively. One could very easily adjust the tax rates on individuals and eliminate corporate taxes to remain revenue neutral. Given how horrifically complicated our tax code is, anything that simplifies it is a step in the right direction. Wont this simply mean that money is instead hoarded in the companies pocket instead of the individual? Why would the corporation horde the money? You have to keep in mind what a corporation is. It's a construct for doing business and making money for its owners. Every dollar that stays in the corporation is money that the owners aren't realizing in profits on their investment. Owners want and need to realize a gain at some point. For this reason, a corporation won't hang on to money if it doesn't have a legitimate, business-related, strategic reason to do so Does it? If I own company X (51% shares or whatever) and it makes a million a year yet I only spend 500k a year what reason do I have to take the other 500k out of the company if I pay taxes when I do and no taxes if I don't? Yes this wont apply to every business but it will apply to enough to be a problem.
So how are you getting the $500,000 to pay for your $500,000 in expenses? You can't use your company to pay for your personal expenses. People who do that inevitably have the IRS crawl up their asses. To cover your $500,000 in expenses, you have to make a distribution to yourself one way or another -- most likely as a dividend or as part of a salary. In other words, the money can't stay in the corporation if its your sole source of income.
ps.
Your American, you know corporations are not a construct for business, their people.
I'm sure if you look around, you'll see me saying both that corporations are constructs and that corporations are people. Both are true depending upon how you look at it, and neither is mutually exclusive.
|
On July 17 2014 02:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 02:28 Gorsameth wrote:On July 17 2014 02:20 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2014 02:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 17 2014 01:57 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2014 01:48 YoureFired wrote:On July 17 2014 01:40 xDaunt wrote:
Taxing corporations is dumb anyway. Get rid of or greatly reduce corporate taxes and increase it on individuals to offset the loss. wat could you explain the logic behind this (if there is any) Taxing corporations separately creates distortions in behavior, the most notable of which is relocating out of country to nations (or other states) that don't tax corporations. These problems are entirely unnecessary because corporate profits are already taxed when those profits flow to owners and employees as capital gains and income respectively. One could very easily adjust the tax rates on individuals and eliminate corporate taxes to remain revenue neutral. Given how horrifically complicated our tax code is, anything that simplifies it is a step in the right direction. Wont this simply mean that money is instead hoarded in the companies pocket instead of the individual? Why would the corporation horde the money? You have to keep in mind what a corporation is. It's a construct for doing business and making money for its owners. Every dollar that stays in the corporation is money that the owners aren't realizing in profits on their investment. Owners want and need to realize a gain at some point. For this reason, a corporation won't hang on to money if it doesn't have a legitimate, business-related, strategic reason to do so Does it? If I own company X (51% shares or whatever) and it makes a million a year yet I only spend 500k a year what reason do I have to take the other 500k out of the company if I pay taxes when I do and no taxes if I don't? Yes this wont apply to every business but it will apply to enough to be a problem. So how are you getting the $500,000 to pay for your $500,000 in expenses? You can't use your company to pay for your personal expenses. People who do that inevitably have the IRS crawl up their asses. To cover your $500,000 in expenses, you have to make a distribution to yourself one way or another -- most likely as a dividend or as part of a salary. In other words, the money can't stay in the corporation if its your sole source of income. Show nested quote +ps.
Your American, you know corporations are not a construct for business, their people. I'm sure if you look around, you'll see me saying both that corporations are constructs and that corporations are people. Both are true depending upon how you look at it, and neither is mutually exclusive.
Ofc you have the declare you take the money, but my point is any money you don't need are better left in the corporation because there you pay no taxes rather then take it out where you do pay taxes.
You would get rich people making dummy corporations to store their excess money because there they don't pay taxes under your idea.
|
On July 17 2014 02:45 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2014 02:28 Gorsameth wrote:On July 17 2014 02:20 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2014 02:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 17 2014 01:57 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2014 01:48 YoureFired wrote:On July 17 2014 01:40 xDaunt wrote:
Taxing corporations is dumb anyway. Get rid of or greatly reduce corporate taxes and increase it on individuals to offset the loss. wat could you explain the logic behind this (if there is any) Taxing corporations separately creates distortions in behavior, the most notable of which is relocating out of country to nations (or other states) that don't tax corporations. These problems are entirely unnecessary because corporate profits are already taxed when those profits flow to owners and employees as capital gains and income respectively. One could very easily adjust the tax rates on individuals and eliminate corporate taxes to remain revenue neutral. Given how horrifically complicated our tax code is, anything that simplifies it is a step in the right direction. Wont this simply mean that money is instead hoarded in the companies pocket instead of the individual? Why would the corporation horde the money? You have to keep in mind what a corporation is. It's a construct for doing business and making money for its owners. Every dollar that stays in the corporation is money that the owners aren't realizing in profits on their investment. Owners want and need to realize a gain at some point. For this reason, a corporation won't hang on to money if it doesn't have a legitimate, business-related, strategic reason to do so Does it? If I own company X (51% shares or whatever) and it makes a million a year yet I only spend 500k a year what reason do I have to take the other 500k out of the company if I pay taxes when I do and no taxes if I don't? Yes this wont apply to every business but it will apply to enough to be a problem. So how are you getting the $500,000 to pay for your $500,000 in expenses? You can't use your company to pay for your personal expenses. People who do that inevitably have the IRS crawl up their asses. To cover your $500,000 in expenses, you have to make a distribution to yourself one way or another -- most likely as a dividend or as part of a salary. In other words, the money can't stay in the corporation if its your sole source of income. ps.
Your American, you know corporations are not a construct for business, their people. I'm sure if you look around, you'll see me saying both that corporations are constructs and that corporations are people. Both are true depending upon how you look at it, and neither is mutually exclusive. Ofc you have the declare you take the money, but my point is any money you don't need are better left in the corporation because there you pay no taxes rather then take it out where you do pay taxes. You would get rich people making dummy corporations to store their excess money because there they don't pay taxes under your idea.
So what? You may be rich on paper, but it's wealth that you can't use as long as it stays in the corporation. It's no different than owning a stock that has doubled since you invested it. You don't actually realize the wealth until you sell the stock. In other words, at some point, the owner of the corporation will always make a distribution to himself and he will pay taxes on that distribution.
|
Investing your money is tax deductible anyway.(which makes sense, because you're actually growing your company) Putting your money into dummy corporations is something you can already do. It's pretty stupid though, because effectively your money is being wasted. Apple has billions of cash stored in tax heavens that is just lying around. The moment they'd bring it back in the US they'll need to pay taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
