|
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 March 03 2014 11:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 10:06 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 09:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 03 2014 09:36 DetriusXii wrote:On March 02 2014 15:48 Wolfstan wrote:On March 02 2014 14:06 oneofthem wrote:
^wolfstan we were talking about the portion of total wealth generated captured by capital. this is different from asset appreciation The idea is still the same as I thought it best to explain how extracting money from the capital refuted his point better as he referenced the value of capital(capital markets) as % of income(the real economy metric that best supports his argument) and his argument that the solution is to somehow shift more value into the real economy from the capital economy. You are more concerned about the flow from the real economy into the capital markets it seems, I agree with you but probably for different reasons. I'm more concerned about uneducated Joe Blow using his after tax income that should be spent on consumer purchase stepping into the capital markets for that 40k equity in our previous example and getting eaten alive by the smart money. Both that is also one of the best ways to achieve the goal of social mobility so I am also advocate of it. You seem more interested in the 2k earnings made from the company? The short answer is it's not usually a problem as that money usually stays in the real economy through capital allocation, whether its spent to grow the company, or released as a dividend. The 2k earnings have already been taxed at 15%(35% at the richest, most unequal companies) and the government taxes again for cash dividend at 20% for the richest, most unholy assholes among us. Say Mr. Owner wants a lavish lifestyle, so the company declares a 1000 dollar dividend, he takes his 500 bucks pays the government their 100 bucks and the 400 stays in the real economy buying goods that the 99% produce. So congratulations, Mr owner still has 40000 net worth only paid taxes on the lifestyle he wanted, and people are still upset with him for having more net worth than he can spend in a lifetime. In a perfect world rates for income tax = interest tax = dividend tax + corporate tax = capital gains tax + corporate tax. But hey inequality would still exist eh? Or were you talking about wealth generated as in capital turning a company with 3000 in assets and 1000 in earnings into a 11000 asset/2000 earnings company when you feel labor should have grown the company? Just nitpicking about your perfect world tax rates. Corporations enjoy limited liability meaning that shareholders cannot be targeted to cover the liabilities of a corporation. Partnership owners and small business owners can be prosecuted for their business liabilities up to the point of declaring bankruptcy. Clearly, since you're insinuating that it's unfair for corporations to be double taxed, how do you propose their inequality of liabilities be covered? Should all present shareholders be identified so that their wealth can be sought after to cover corporate liabilities? Not sure about Canada, but in the US small businesses and partnerships have ownership forms that offer limited liability too. I'm not going to say that those forms are *always* accessible, but they are accessible. Can you link to an example? It still doesn't address the fact that corporations are not the equal creature in income as the owners of a corporation get to absolve themselves of the responsibility for the financial responsibilities of the corporation. Corporations aren't equal, so double taxation shouldn't be bloody murder when applied to them. Corporate taxation is completely unrelated to the issue of shareholder liability for corporate debt.
And why is that so?
|
On March 03 2014 12:17 DetriusXii wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 11:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2014 10:06 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 09:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 03 2014 09:36 DetriusXii wrote:On March 02 2014 15:48 Wolfstan wrote:On March 02 2014 14:06 oneofthem wrote:
^wolfstan we were talking about the portion of total wealth generated captured by capital. this is different from asset appreciation The idea is still the same as I thought it best to explain how extracting money from the capital refuted his point better as he referenced the value of capital(capital markets) as % of income(the real economy metric that best supports his argument) and his argument that the solution is to somehow shift more value into the real economy from the capital economy. You are more concerned about the flow from the real economy into the capital markets it seems, I agree with you but probably for different reasons. I'm more concerned about uneducated Joe Blow using his after tax income that should be spent on consumer purchase stepping into the capital markets for that 40k equity in our previous example and getting eaten alive by the smart money. Both that is also one of the best ways to achieve the goal of social mobility so I am also advocate of it. You seem more interested in the 2k earnings made from the company? The short answer is it's not usually a problem as that money usually stays in the real economy through capital allocation, whether its spent to grow the company, or released as a dividend. The 2k earnings have already been taxed at 15%(35% at the richest, most unequal companies) and the government taxes again for cash dividend at 20% for the richest, most unholy assholes among us. Say Mr. Owner wants a lavish lifestyle, so the company declares a 1000 dollar dividend, he takes his 500 bucks pays the government their 100 bucks and the 400 stays in the real economy buying goods that the 99% produce. So congratulations, Mr owner still has 40000 net worth only paid taxes on the lifestyle he wanted, and people are still upset with him for having more net worth than he can spend in a lifetime. In a perfect world rates for income tax = interest tax = dividend tax + corporate tax = capital gains tax + corporate tax. But hey inequality would still exist eh? Or were you talking about wealth generated as in capital turning a company with 3000 in assets and 1000 in earnings into a 11000 asset/2000 earnings company when you feel labor should have grown the company? Just nitpicking about your perfect world tax rates. Corporations enjoy limited liability meaning that shareholders cannot be targeted to cover the liabilities of a corporation. Partnership owners and small business owners can be prosecuted for their business liabilities up to the point of declaring bankruptcy. Clearly, since you're insinuating that it's unfair for corporations to be double taxed, how do you propose their inequality of liabilities be covered? Should all present shareholders be identified so that their wealth can be sought after to cover corporate liabilities? Not sure about Canada, but in the US small businesses and partnerships have ownership forms that offer limited liability too. I'm not going to say that those forms are *always* accessible, but they are accessible. Can you link to an example? It still doesn't address the fact that corporations are not the equal creature in income as the owners of a corporation get to absolve themselves of the responsibility for the financial responsibilities of the corporation. Corporations aren't equal, so double taxation shouldn't be bloody murder when applied to them. Corporate taxation is completely unrelated to the issue of shareholder liability for corporate debt. And why is that so?
Just think about it. What does taxing a corporation have to do with sticking the corporate owners with the liabilities of the corporation? Nothing. They are two distinct issues.
|
On March 03 2014 12:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 12:17 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 11:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2014 10:06 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 09:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 03 2014 09:36 DetriusXii wrote:On March 02 2014 15:48 Wolfstan wrote:On March 02 2014 14:06 oneofthem wrote:
^wolfstan we were talking about the portion of total wealth generated captured by capital. this is different from asset appreciation The idea is still the same as I thought it best to explain how extracting money from the capital refuted his point better as he referenced the value of capital(capital markets) as % of income(the real economy metric that best supports his argument) and his argument that the solution is to somehow shift more value into the real economy from the capital economy. You are more concerned about the flow from the real economy into the capital markets it seems, I agree with you but probably for different reasons. I'm more concerned about uneducated Joe Blow using his after tax income that should be spent on consumer purchase stepping into the capital markets for that 40k equity in our previous example and getting eaten alive by the smart money. Both that is also one of the best ways to achieve the goal of social mobility so I am also advocate of it. You seem more interested in the 2k earnings made from the company? The short answer is it's not usually a problem as that money usually stays in the real economy through capital allocation, whether its spent to grow the company, or released as a dividend. The 2k earnings have already been taxed at 15%(35% at the richest, most unequal companies) and the government taxes again for cash dividend at 20% for the richest, most unholy assholes among us. Say Mr. Owner wants a lavish lifestyle, so the company declares a 1000 dollar dividend, he takes his 500 bucks pays the government their 100 bucks and the 400 stays in the real economy buying goods that the 99% produce. So congratulations, Mr owner still has 40000 net worth only paid taxes on the lifestyle he wanted, and people are still upset with him for having more net worth than he can spend in a lifetime. In a perfect world rates for income tax = interest tax = dividend tax + corporate tax = capital gains tax + corporate tax. But hey inequality would still exist eh? Or were you talking about wealth generated as in capital turning a company with 3000 in assets and 1000 in earnings into a 11000 asset/2000 earnings company when you feel labor should have grown the company? Just nitpicking about your perfect world tax rates. Corporations enjoy limited liability meaning that shareholders cannot be targeted to cover the liabilities of a corporation. Partnership owners and small business owners can be prosecuted for their business liabilities up to the point of declaring bankruptcy. Clearly, since you're insinuating that it's unfair for corporations to be double taxed, how do you propose their inequality of liabilities be covered? Should all present shareholders be identified so that their wealth can be sought after to cover corporate liabilities? Not sure about Canada, but in the US small businesses and partnerships have ownership forms that offer limited liability too. I'm not going to say that those forms are *always* accessible, but they are accessible. Can you link to an example? It still doesn't address the fact that corporations are not the equal creature in income as the owners of a corporation get to absolve themselves of the responsibility for the financial responsibilities of the corporation. Corporations aren't equal, so double taxation shouldn't be bloody murder when applied to them. Corporate taxation is completely unrelated to the issue of shareholder liability for corporate debt. And why is that so? Just think about it. What does taxing a corporation have to do with sticking the corporate owners with the liabilities of the corporation? Nothing. They are two distinct issues.
Well, what does complaining about the unequal taxation of a corporation have to do with the taxing of an individual? Nothing, because they are different structures. Wolfstan had proposed that the dividend taxation + corporate income taxation should equal the taxation of individual incomes. Why should small businesses and people have the same tax rate as a corporation when they don't have the same liability protection mechanisms?
|
On March 03 2014 12:29 DetriusXii wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 12:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2014 12:17 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 11:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2014 10:06 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 09:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 03 2014 09:36 DetriusXii wrote:On March 02 2014 15:48 Wolfstan wrote:On March 02 2014 14:06 oneofthem wrote:
^wolfstan we were talking about the portion of total wealth generated captured by capital. this is different from asset appreciation The idea is still the same as I thought it best to explain how extracting money from the capital refuted his point better as he referenced the value of capital(capital markets) as % of income(the real economy metric that best supports his argument) and his argument that the solution is to somehow shift more value into the real economy from the capital economy. You are more concerned about the flow from the real economy into the capital markets it seems, I agree with you but probably for different reasons. I'm more concerned about uneducated Joe Blow using his after tax income that should be spent on consumer purchase stepping into the capital markets for that 40k equity in our previous example and getting eaten alive by the smart money. Both that is also one of the best ways to achieve the goal of social mobility so I am also advocate of it. You seem more interested in the 2k earnings made from the company? The short answer is it's not usually a problem as that money usually stays in the real economy through capital allocation, whether its spent to grow the company, or released as a dividend. The 2k earnings have already been taxed at 15%(35% at the richest, most unequal companies) and the government taxes again for cash dividend at 20% for the richest, most unholy assholes among us. Say Mr. Owner wants a lavish lifestyle, so the company declares a 1000 dollar dividend, he takes his 500 bucks pays the government their 100 bucks and the 400 stays in the real economy buying goods that the 99% produce. So congratulations, Mr owner still has 40000 net worth only paid taxes on the lifestyle he wanted, and people are still upset with him for having more net worth than he can spend in a lifetime. In a perfect world rates for income tax = interest tax = dividend tax + corporate tax = capital gains tax + corporate tax. But hey inequality would still exist eh? Or were you talking about wealth generated as in capital turning a company with 3000 in assets and 1000 in earnings into a 11000 asset/2000 earnings company when you feel labor should have grown the company? Just nitpicking about your perfect world tax rates. Corporations enjoy limited liability meaning that shareholders cannot be targeted to cover the liabilities of a corporation. Partnership owners and small business owners can be prosecuted for their business liabilities up to the point of declaring bankruptcy. Clearly, since you're insinuating that it's unfair for corporations to be double taxed, how do you propose their inequality of liabilities be covered? Should all present shareholders be identified so that their wealth can be sought after to cover corporate liabilities? Not sure about Canada, but in the US small businesses and partnerships have ownership forms that offer limited liability too. I'm not going to say that those forms are *always* accessible, but they are accessible. Can you link to an example? It still doesn't address the fact that corporations are not the equal creature in income as the owners of a corporation get to absolve themselves of the responsibility for the financial responsibilities of the corporation. Corporations aren't equal, so double taxation shouldn't be bloody murder when applied to them. Corporate taxation is completely unrelated to the issue of shareholder liability for corporate debt. And why is that so? Just think about it. What does taxing a corporation have to do with sticking the corporate owners with the liabilities of the corporation? Nothing. They are two distinct issues. Well, what does complaining about the unequal taxation of a corporation have to do with the taxing of an individual? Nothing, because they are different structures. Wolfstan had proposed that the dividend taxation + corporate income taxation should equal the taxation of individual incomes. Why should small businesses and people have the same tax rate as a corporation when they don't have the same liability protection mechanisms?
Only total idiots don't run their small businesses in a corporate form that allows for pass through taxation (s-corp status) and affords the same corporate veil protections that large public corporations have. In other words, the problem that you describe in your last sentence is a non-issue.
|
On March 03 2014 12:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 12:29 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 12:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2014 12:17 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 11:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2014 10:06 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 09:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 03 2014 09:36 DetriusXii wrote:On March 02 2014 15:48 Wolfstan wrote:On March 02 2014 14:06 oneofthem wrote:
^wolfstan we were talking about the portion of total wealth generated captured by capital. this is different from asset appreciation The idea is still the same as I thought it best to explain how extracting money from the capital refuted his point better as he referenced the value of capital(capital markets) as % of income(the real economy metric that best supports his argument) and his argument that the solution is to somehow shift more value into the real economy from the capital economy. You are more concerned about the flow from the real economy into the capital markets it seems, I agree with you but probably for different reasons. I'm more concerned about uneducated Joe Blow using his after tax income that should be spent on consumer purchase stepping into the capital markets for that 40k equity in our previous example and getting eaten alive by the smart money. Both that is also one of the best ways to achieve the goal of social mobility so I am also advocate of it. You seem more interested in the 2k earnings made from the company? The short answer is it's not usually a problem as that money usually stays in the real economy through capital allocation, whether its spent to grow the company, or released as a dividend. The 2k earnings have already been taxed at 15%(35% at the richest, most unequal companies) and the government taxes again for cash dividend at 20% for the richest, most unholy assholes among us. Say Mr. Owner wants a lavish lifestyle, so the company declares a 1000 dollar dividend, he takes his 500 bucks pays the government their 100 bucks and the 400 stays in the real economy buying goods that the 99% produce. So congratulations, Mr owner still has 40000 net worth only paid taxes on the lifestyle he wanted, and people are still upset with him for having more net worth than he can spend in a lifetime. In a perfect world rates for income tax = interest tax = dividend tax + corporate tax = capital gains tax + corporate tax. But hey inequality would still exist eh? Or were you talking about wealth generated as in capital turning a company with 3000 in assets and 1000 in earnings into a 11000 asset/2000 earnings company when you feel labor should have grown the company? Just nitpicking about your perfect world tax rates. Corporations enjoy limited liability meaning that shareholders cannot be targeted to cover the liabilities of a corporation. Partnership owners and small business owners can be prosecuted for their business liabilities up to the point of declaring bankruptcy. Clearly, since you're insinuating that it's unfair for corporations to be double taxed, how do you propose their inequality of liabilities be covered? Should all present shareholders be identified so that their wealth can be sought after to cover corporate liabilities? Not sure about Canada, but in the US small businesses and partnerships have ownership forms that offer limited liability too. I'm not going to say that those forms are *always* accessible, but they are accessible. Can you link to an example? It still doesn't address the fact that corporations are not the equal creature in income as the owners of a corporation get to absolve themselves of the responsibility for the financial responsibilities of the corporation. Corporations aren't equal, so double taxation shouldn't be bloody murder when applied to them. Corporate taxation is completely unrelated to the issue of shareholder liability for corporate debt. And why is that so? Just think about it. What does taxing a corporation have to do with sticking the corporate owners with the liabilities of the corporation? Nothing. They are two distinct issues. Well, what does complaining about the unequal taxation of a corporation have to do with the taxing of an individual? Nothing, because they are different structures. Wolfstan had proposed that the dividend taxation + corporate income taxation should equal the taxation of individual incomes. Why should small businesses and people have the same tax rate as a corporation when they don't have the same liability protection mechanisms? Only total idiots don't run their small businesses in a corporate form that allows for pass through taxation (s-corp status) and affords the same corporate veil protections that large public corporations have. In other words, the problem that you describe in your last sentence is a non-issue.
Except for the part where it is an issue. People start up companies as sole-proprietorships or partnerships all the time, for various reasons. They aren't stupid, and they exist.
|
On March 03 2014 12:47 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 12:36 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2014 12:29 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 12:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2014 12:17 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 11:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2014 10:06 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 09:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 03 2014 09:36 DetriusXii wrote:On March 02 2014 15:48 Wolfstan wrote:
[quote]
The idea is still the same as I thought it best to explain how extracting money from the capital refuted his point better as he referenced the value of capital(capital markets) as % of income(the real economy metric that best supports his argument) and his argument that the solution is to somehow shift more value into the real economy from the capital economy.
You are more concerned about the flow from the real economy into the capital markets it seems, I agree with you but probably for different reasons. I'm more concerned about uneducated Joe Blow using his after tax income that should be spent on consumer purchase stepping into the capital markets for that 40k equity in our previous example and getting eaten alive by the smart money. Both that is also one of the best ways to achieve the goal of social mobility so I am also advocate of it.
You seem more interested in the 2k earnings made from the company? The short answer is it's not usually a problem as that money usually stays in the real economy through capital allocation, whether its spent to grow the company, or released as a dividend. The 2k earnings have already been taxed at 15%(35% at the richest, most unequal companies) and the government taxes again for cash dividend at 20% for the richest, most unholy assholes among us. Say Mr. Owner wants a lavish lifestyle, so the company declares a 1000 dollar dividend, he takes his 500 bucks pays the government their 100 bucks and the 400 stays in the real economy buying goods that the 99% produce. So congratulations, Mr owner still has 40000 net worth only paid taxes on the lifestyle he wanted, and people are still upset with him for having more net worth than he can spend in a lifetime.
In a perfect world rates for income tax = interest tax = dividend tax + corporate tax = capital gains tax + corporate tax. But hey inequality would still exist eh?
Or were you talking about wealth generated as in capital turning a company with 3000 in assets and 1000 in earnings into a 11000 asset/2000 earnings company when you feel labor should have grown the company? Just nitpicking about your perfect world tax rates. Corporations enjoy limited liability meaning that shareholders cannot be targeted to cover the liabilities of a corporation. Partnership owners and small business owners can be prosecuted for their business liabilities up to the point of declaring bankruptcy. Clearly, since you're insinuating that it's unfair for corporations to be double taxed, how do you propose their inequality of liabilities be covered? Should all present shareholders be identified so that their wealth can be sought after to cover corporate liabilities? Not sure about Canada, but in the US small businesses and partnerships have ownership forms that offer limited liability too. I'm not going to say that those forms are *always* accessible, but they are accessible. Can you link to an example? It still doesn't address the fact that corporations are not the equal creature in income as the owners of a corporation get to absolve themselves of the responsibility for the financial responsibilities of the corporation. Corporations aren't equal, so double taxation shouldn't be bloody murder when applied to them. Corporate taxation is completely unrelated to the issue of shareholder liability for corporate debt. And why is that so? Just think about it. What does taxing a corporation have to do with sticking the corporate owners with the liabilities of the corporation? Nothing. They are two distinct issues. Well, what does complaining about the unequal taxation of a corporation have to do with the taxing of an individual? Nothing, because they are different structures. Wolfstan had proposed that the dividend taxation + corporate income taxation should equal the taxation of individual incomes. Why should small businesses and people have the same tax rate as a corporation when they don't have the same liability protection mechanisms? Only total idiots don't run their small businesses in a corporate form that allows for pass through taxation (s-corp status) and affords the same corporate veil protections that large public corporations have. In other words, the problem that you describe in your last sentence is a non-issue. Except for the part where it is an issue. People start up companies all the time as sole-proprietorships or partnerships all the time, for various reasons. They aren't stupid, and they exist.
No, they are idiots. Do you know how easy it is organize as an LLC or even a basic S-corp? Really easy. If you prefer to call them "business illiterate" or "corporate illiterate," that's fine. Doesn't change the fact that they are doing something stupid.
|
On March 03 2014 10:06 DetriusXii wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 09:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 03 2014 09:36 DetriusXii wrote:On March 02 2014 15:48 Wolfstan wrote:On March 02 2014 14:06 oneofthem wrote:
^wolfstan we were talking about the portion of total wealth generated captured by capital. this is different from asset appreciation The idea is still the same as I thought it best to explain how extracting money from the capital refuted his point better as he referenced the value of capital(capital markets) as % of income(the real economy metric that best supports his argument) and his argument that the solution is to somehow shift more value into the real economy from the capital economy. You are more concerned about the flow from the real economy into the capital markets it seems, I agree with you but probably for different reasons. I'm more concerned about uneducated Joe Blow using his after tax income that should be spent on consumer purchase stepping into the capital markets for that 40k equity in our previous example and getting eaten alive by the smart money. Both that is also one of the best ways to achieve the goal of social mobility so I am also advocate of it. You seem more interested in the 2k earnings made from the company? The short answer is it's not usually a problem as that money usually stays in the real economy through capital allocation, whether its spent to grow the company, or released as a dividend. The 2k earnings have already been taxed at 15%(35% at the richest, most unequal companies) and the government taxes again for cash dividend at 20% for the richest, most unholy assholes among us. Say Mr. Owner wants a lavish lifestyle, so the company declares a 1000 dollar dividend, he takes his 500 bucks pays the government their 100 bucks and the 400 stays in the real economy buying goods that the 99% produce. So congratulations, Mr owner still has 40000 net worth only paid taxes on the lifestyle he wanted, and people are still upset with him for having more net worth than he can spend in a lifetime. In a perfect world rates for income tax = interest tax = dividend tax + corporate tax = capital gains tax + corporate tax. But hey inequality would still exist eh? Or were you talking about wealth generated as in capital turning a company with 3000 in assets and 1000 in earnings into a 11000 asset/2000 earnings company when you feel labor should have grown the company? Just nitpicking about your perfect world tax rates. Corporations enjoy limited liability meaning that shareholders cannot be targeted to cover the liabilities of a corporation. Partnership owners and small business owners can be prosecuted for their business liabilities up to the point of declaring bankruptcy. Clearly, since you're insinuating that it's unfair for corporations to be double taxed, how do you propose their inequality of liabilities be covered? Should all present shareholders be identified so that their wealth can be sought after to cover corporate liabilities? Not sure about Canada, but in the US small businesses and partnerships have ownership forms that offer limited liability too. I'm not going to say that those forms are *always* accessible, but they are accessible. Can you link to an example? It still doesn't address the fact that corporations are not the equal creature in income as the owners of a corporation get to absolve themselves of the responsibility for the financial responsibilities of the corporation. Corporations aren't equal, so double taxation shouldn't be bloody murder when applied to them.
You can be an LLC (Limited Liability Company) if you are small.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability_company
You won't get quite the same liability protection as a C-corp, but you'll get taxed as an individual if you want.
|
On March 03 2014 12:29 DetriusXii wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 12:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2014 12:17 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 11:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2014 10:06 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 09:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 03 2014 09:36 DetriusXii wrote:On March 02 2014 15:48 Wolfstan wrote:On March 02 2014 14:06 oneofthem wrote:
^wolfstan we were talking about the portion of total wealth generated captured by capital. this is different from asset appreciation The idea is still the same as I thought it best to explain how extracting money from the capital refuted his point better as he referenced the value of capital(capital markets) as % of income(the real economy metric that best supports his argument) and his argument that the solution is to somehow shift more value into the real economy from the capital economy. You are more concerned about the flow from the real economy into the capital markets it seems, I agree with you but probably for different reasons. I'm more concerned about uneducated Joe Blow using his after tax income that should be spent on consumer purchase stepping into the capital markets for that 40k equity in our previous example and getting eaten alive by the smart money. Both that is also one of the best ways to achieve the goal of social mobility so I am also advocate of it. You seem more interested in the 2k earnings made from the company? The short answer is it's not usually a problem as that money usually stays in the real economy through capital allocation, whether its spent to grow the company, or released as a dividend. The 2k earnings have already been taxed at 15%(35% at the richest, most unequal companies) and the government taxes again for cash dividend at 20% for the richest, most unholy assholes among us. Say Mr. Owner wants a lavish lifestyle, so the company declares a 1000 dollar dividend, he takes his 500 bucks pays the government their 100 bucks and the 400 stays in the real economy buying goods that the 99% produce. So congratulations, Mr owner still has 40000 net worth only paid taxes on the lifestyle he wanted, and people are still upset with him for having more net worth than he can spend in a lifetime. In a perfect world rates for income tax = interest tax = dividend tax + corporate tax = capital gains tax + corporate tax. But hey inequality would still exist eh? Or were you talking about wealth generated as in capital turning a company with 3000 in assets and 1000 in earnings into a 11000 asset/2000 earnings company when you feel labor should have grown the company? Just nitpicking about your perfect world tax rates. Corporations enjoy limited liability meaning that shareholders cannot be targeted to cover the liabilities of a corporation. Partnership owners and small business owners can be prosecuted for their business liabilities up to the point of declaring bankruptcy. Clearly, since you're insinuating that it's unfair for corporations to be double taxed, how do you propose their inequality of liabilities be covered? Should all present shareholders be identified so that their wealth can be sought after to cover corporate liabilities? Not sure about Canada, but in the US small businesses and partnerships have ownership forms that offer limited liability too. I'm not going to say that those forms are *always* accessible, but they are accessible. Can you link to an example? It still doesn't address the fact that corporations are not the equal creature in income as the owners of a corporation get to absolve themselves of the responsibility for the financial responsibilities of the corporation. Corporations aren't equal, so double taxation shouldn't be bloody murder when applied to them. Corporate taxation is completely unrelated to the issue of shareholder liability for corporate debt. And why is that so? Just think about it. What does taxing a corporation have to do with sticking the corporate owners with the liabilities of the corporation? Nothing. They are two distinct issues. Well, what does complaining about the unequal taxation of a corporation have to do with the taxing of an individual? Nothing, because they are different structures. Wolfstan had proposed that the dividend taxation + corporate income taxation should equal the taxation of individual incomes. Why should small businesses and people have the same tax rate as a corporation when they don't have the same liability protection mechanisms?
Double taxation is a pretty poor way for society to gain back what's lost* through limited liability. By double taxing equity you encourage more debt, which means more bankruptcy and more losses to society.
*Limited liability is thought to be a good thing overall for society. C-corps are also generally big, so the pay a higher tax rate anyways.
|
On March 03 2014 12:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 12:29 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 12:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2014 12:17 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 11:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2014 10:06 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 09:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 03 2014 09:36 DetriusXii wrote:On March 02 2014 15:48 Wolfstan wrote:On March 02 2014 14:06 oneofthem wrote:
^wolfstan we were talking about the portion of total wealth generated captured by capital. this is different from asset appreciation The idea is still the same as I thought it best to explain how extracting money from the capital refuted his point better as he referenced the value of capital(capital markets) as % of income(the real economy metric that best supports his argument) and his argument that the solution is to somehow shift more value into the real economy from the capital economy. You are more concerned about the flow from the real economy into the capital markets it seems, I agree with you but probably for different reasons. I'm more concerned about uneducated Joe Blow using his after tax income that should be spent on consumer purchase stepping into the capital markets for that 40k equity in our previous example and getting eaten alive by the smart money. Both that is also one of the best ways to achieve the goal of social mobility so I am also advocate of it. You seem more interested in the 2k earnings made from the company? The short answer is it's not usually a problem as that money usually stays in the real economy through capital allocation, whether its spent to grow the company, or released as a dividend. The 2k earnings have already been taxed at 15%(35% at the richest, most unequal companies) and the government taxes again for cash dividend at 20% for the richest, most unholy assholes among us. Say Mr. Owner wants a lavish lifestyle, so the company declares a 1000 dollar dividend, he takes his 500 bucks pays the government their 100 bucks and the 400 stays in the real economy buying goods that the 99% produce. So congratulations, Mr owner still has 40000 net worth only paid taxes on the lifestyle he wanted, and people are still upset with him for having more net worth than he can spend in a lifetime. In a perfect world rates for income tax = interest tax = dividend tax + corporate tax = capital gains tax + corporate tax. But hey inequality would still exist eh? Or were you talking about wealth generated as in capital turning a company with 3000 in assets and 1000 in earnings into a 11000 asset/2000 earnings company when you feel labor should have grown the company? Just nitpicking about your perfect world tax rates. Corporations enjoy limited liability meaning that shareholders cannot be targeted to cover the liabilities of a corporation. Partnership owners and small business owners can be prosecuted for their business liabilities up to the point of declaring bankruptcy. Clearly, since you're insinuating that it's unfair for corporations to be double taxed, how do you propose their inequality of liabilities be covered? Should all present shareholders be identified so that their wealth can be sought after to cover corporate liabilities? Not sure about Canada, but in the US small businesses and partnerships have ownership forms that offer limited liability too. I'm not going to say that those forms are *always* accessible, but they are accessible. Can you link to an example? It still doesn't address the fact that corporations are not the equal creature in income as the owners of a corporation get to absolve themselves of the responsibility for the financial responsibilities of the corporation. Corporations aren't equal, so double taxation shouldn't be bloody murder when applied to them. Corporate taxation is completely unrelated to the issue of shareholder liability for corporate debt. And why is that so? Just think about it. What does taxing a corporation have to do with sticking the corporate owners with the liabilities of the corporation? Nothing. They are two distinct issues. Well, what does complaining about the unequal taxation of a corporation have to do with the taxing of an individual? Nothing, because they are different structures. Wolfstan had proposed that the dividend taxation + corporate income taxation should equal the taxation of individual incomes. Why should small businesses and people have the same tax rate as a corporation when they don't have the same liability protection mechanisms? Double taxation is a pretty poor way for society to gain back what's lost* through limited liability. By double taxing equity you encourage more debt, which means more bankruptcy and more losses to society. *Limited liability is thought to be a good thing overall for society. C-corps are also generally big, so the pay a higher tax rate anyways.
Higher marginal/nominal tax rate. Mileage may vary though.
|
On March 03 2014 13:07 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 12:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 03 2014 12:29 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 12:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2014 12:17 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 11:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2014 10:06 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 09:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 03 2014 09:36 DetriusXii wrote:On March 02 2014 15:48 Wolfstan wrote:
[quote]
The idea is still the same as I thought it best to explain how extracting money from the capital refuted his point better as he referenced the value of capital(capital markets) as % of income(the real economy metric that best supports his argument) and his argument that the solution is to somehow shift more value into the real economy from the capital economy.
You are more concerned about the flow from the real economy into the capital markets it seems, I agree with you but probably for different reasons. I'm more concerned about uneducated Joe Blow using his after tax income that should be spent on consumer purchase stepping into the capital markets for that 40k equity in our previous example and getting eaten alive by the smart money. Both that is also one of the best ways to achieve the goal of social mobility so I am also advocate of it.
You seem more interested in the 2k earnings made from the company? The short answer is it's not usually a problem as that money usually stays in the real economy through capital allocation, whether its spent to grow the company, or released as a dividend. The 2k earnings have already been taxed at 15%(35% at the richest, most unequal companies) and the government taxes again for cash dividend at 20% for the richest, most unholy assholes among us. Say Mr. Owner wants a lavish lifestyle, so the company declares a 1000 dollar dividend, he takes his 500 bucks pays the government their 100 bucks and the 400 stays in the real economy buying goods that the 99% produce. So congratulations, Mr owner still has 40000 net worth only paid taxes on the lifestyle he wanted, and people are still upset with him for having more net worth than he can spend in a lifetime.
In a perfect world rates for income tax = interest tax = dividend tax + corporate tax = capital gains tax + corporate tax. But hey inequality would still exist eh?
Or were you talking about wealth generated as in capital turning a company with 3000 in assets and 1000 in earnings into a 11000 asset/2000 earnings company when you feel labor should have grown the company? Just nitpicking about your perfect world tax rates. Corporations enjoy limited liability meaning that shareholders cannot be targeted to cover the liabilities of a corporation. Partnership owners and small business owners can be prosecuted for their business liabilities up to the point of declaring bankruptcy. Clearly, since you're insinuating that it's unfair for corporations to be double taxed, how do you propose their inequality of liabilities be covered? Should all present shareholders be identified so that their wealth can be sought after to cover corporate liabilities? Not sure about Canada, but in the US small businesses and partnerships have ownership forms that offer limited liability too. I'm not going to say that those forms are *always* accessible, but they are accessible. Can you link to an example? It still doesn't address the fact that corporations are not the equal creature in income as the owners of a corporation get to absolve themselves of the responsibility for the financial responsibilities of the corporation. Corporations aren't equal, so double taxation shouldn't be bloody murder when applied to them. Corporate taxation is completely unrelated to the issue of shareholder liability for corporate debt. And why is that so? Just think about it. What does taxing a corporation have to do with sticking the corporate owners with the liabilities of the corporation? Nothing. They are two distinct issues. Well, what does complaining about the unequal taxation of a corporation have to do with the taxing of an individual? Nothing, because they are different structures. Wolfstan had proposed that the dividend taxation + corporate income taxation should equal the taxation of individual incomes. Why should small businesses and people have the same tax rate as a corporation when they don't have the same liability protection mechanisms? Double taxation is a pretty poor way for society to gain back what's lost* through limited liability. By double taxing equity you encourage more debt, which means more bankruptcy and more losses to society. *Limited liability is thought to be a good thing overall for society. C-corps are also generally big, so the pay a higher tax rate anyways. Higher marginal/nominal tax rate. Mileage may vary though.
True, same with personal tax rate though 
|
On March 03 2014 06:20 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 23:22 WhiteDog wrote:On March 02 2014 19:47 Wolfstan wrote:
No, I think uneducated people shouldn't wade into capital markets for their own good. Educated people should be able to purchase regulated capital investments with minimal leverage. The smart money should be able to make unregulated capital investments with greater leverage. This is much how it is in today's society with SEC oversight and accredited investor status. As I said, get yourself educated, as participating in the capital markets can be one of the easiest ways to be upwardly mobile on the social ladder.
Of course the entire investments in capital market should not be liquidated for consumer purchases.
A) it's impossible to liquidate all the capital because the value on paper isn't there yet
B) the massive injection of money would inflate the cost of consumer goods to unsustainable levels
C) the ideas and governments that need the capital markets would be left without funding for growth.
That is why money that tries to leave the capital markets for consumer goods is very regulated and taxed. That is why those with more net worth than is possible to spend in a lifetime draw just enough to sustain their lifestyle and keep most of their wealth in appreciating assets. What are you talking about ? I want to know, to understand in which world your comment make sense ? "Uneducated people" never explored the "capital market"... Do you actually think the sub prime crisis was caused because poor people used internet or their bankers to find out good loan ? Do you even know what you are talking ? It's the "educated" people in banks who made bad bets... Credit comes with risks, for the creditor and the credited. What was badly assessed was the risk for the creditor. It's the bank who proposed a risky service. What is in question is also how the risk was assessed, and transfered to specific organisations that were specialized in taking risk (with credit default swap), and how, because of that structural nonsense, the risk were completly neglected. Now you are making it seems like it was the "poor uneducated people" who are responsible of the crisis. When the world is flowing with capital, it is perfectly normal for bankers to use this relatively cheap ressource to maximize their gain. So the core of the problem is all those things, and not the fact that the capital was used to build houses for "poor uneducated people" - which is rather secondary, if it was not that, it could have been a thousand of other kind of things.To say it bluntly, it is the "smart" and "educated" people who were stupid, and not the poor guy who took a loan to buy himself a house. If you want to limit some risky transactions or limit them, sure go ahead, but don't make it seems like it's the fault of the guy who wants to buy himself a house. I think we are basically arguing the same thing whether the fault of the rich or the poor there should have been much better controls for the capital flowing from the capital markets into real economy. These unchecked flows inflated real estate in the real word and and their derivative paper within the capital markets. This asset appreciation was used for more consumer goods inflating them and the production to produce them even though the valuations were suspect. When the valuations were corrected, the damage to the real economy was severe because people had liquidated their capital gains and the subsequent losses to those gains caused people to be underwater and ruined lives. When the house of cards came down, the losses were in the real economy as well as the capital markets where they should have been contained. Yes there are corrections and if it was one of a thousand other things it should have been contained in the markets where it would not harm "the poor uneducated people". The "smart" and "educated" should be allowed to stupid because their personal balance sheets can absorb valuation mistakes while the poor cannot. Yes, I think the poor guy should not have been given capital to purchase a house. Yes, I think the poor guy should not have been given capital when his house appreciated. Yes, I think the government should not have torn down the barriers between the capital and real economies. Yes, I think the government should not have allowed investment and retail banks to share a balance sheet. Yes, I think banks should not have been overleveraged. Yes, I think risk evaluation was almost non-existent. No, I don't think accumulated wealth should be redistributed to the poor, whether through taxation or private wealth seeking gains at the poor's expense. We JUST saw what happens when the poor are given access to the values on the 1%'s balance sheets and the results are not good for anyone. See we agree on what happened but for different reasons.
So subprime mortgage crisis involved the poor breaking through some barrier that normally exists between a "real economy" and the capital markets? That the poor were given access to this secret club and they fucked it up? What, in your mind, led to that?
This is one of the oddest fictions invented to justify wealth disparity that I've yet seen. What makes you think the capital markets are isolated from the "real economy?" So the real economy runs on debt-financed consumption, and that debt is sold on capital markets, but somehow once it's repackaged as a financial instrument it's contained? I'm sorry, but a financial crisis is a real economy crisis. I don't know where your convoluted reasoning comes from. It seems like you've invented your own rationale for explaining why the "educated rich" are our righteous rulers based on an erroneous conception of exchange value, or some other thing. I don't even know.
|
On March 03 2014 12:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 12:29 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 12:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2014 12:17 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 11:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2014 10:06 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 09:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 03 2014 09:36 DetriusXii wrote:On March 02 2014 15:48 Wolfstan wrote:On March 02 2014 14:06 oneofthem wrote:
^wolfstan we were talking about the portion of total wealth generated captured by capital. this is different from asset appreciation The idea is still the same as I thought it best to explain how extracting money from the capital refuted his point better as he referenced the value of capital(capital markets) as % of income(the real economy metric that best supports his argument) and his argument that the solution is to somehow shift more value into the real economy from the capital economy. You are more concerned about the flow from the real economy into the capital markets it seems, I agree with you but probably for different reasons. I'm more concerned about uneducated Joe Blow using his after tax income that should be spent on consumer purchase stepping into the capital markets for that 40k equity in our previous example and getting eaten alive by the smart money. Both that is also one of the best ways to achieve the goal of social mobility so I am also advocate of it. You seem more interested in the 2k earnings made from the company? The short answer is it's not usually a problem as that money usually stays in the real economy through capital allocation, whether its spent to grow the company, or released as a dividend. The 2k earnings have already been taxed at 15%(35% at the richest, most unequal companies) and the government taxes again for cash dividend at 20% for the richest, most unholy assholes among us. Say Mr. Owner wants a lavish lifestyle, so the company declares a 1000 dollar dividend, he takes his 500 bucks pays the government their 100 bucks and the 400 stays in the real economy buying goods that the 99% produce. So congratulations, Mr owner still has 40000 net worth only paid taxes on the lifestyle he wanted, and people are still upset with him for having more net worth than he can spend in a lifetime. In a perfect world rates for income tax = interest tax = dividend tax + corporate tax = capital gains tax + corporate tax. But hey inequality would still exist eh? Or were you talking about wealth generated as in capital turning a company with 3000 in assets and 1000 in earnings into a 11000 asset/2000 earnings company when you feel labor should have grown the company? Just nitpicking about your perfect world tax rates. Corporations enjoy limited liability meaning that shareholders cannot be targeted to cover the liabilities of a corporation. Partnership owners and small business owners can be prosecuted for their business liabilities up to the point of declaring bankruptcy. Clearly, since you're insinuating that it's unfair for corporations to be double taxed, how do you propose their inequality of liabilities be covered? Should all present shareholders be identified so that their wealth can be sought after to cover corporate liabilities? Not sure about Canada, but in the US small businesses and partnerships have ownership forms that offer limited liability too. I'm not going to say that those forms are *always* accessible, but they are accessible. Can you link to an example? It still doesn't address the fact that corporations are not the equal creature in income as the owners of a corporation get to absolve themselves of the responsibility for the financial responsibilities of the corporation. Corporations aren't equal, so double taxation shouldn't be bloody murder when applied to them. Corporate taxation is completely unrelated to the issue of shareholder liability for corporate debt. And why is that so? Just think about it. What does taxing a corporation have to do with sticking the corporate owners with the liabilities of the corporation? Nothing. They are two distinct issues. Well, what does complaining about the unequal taxation of a corporation have to do with the taxing of an individual? Nothing, because they are different structures. Wolfstan had proposed that the dividend taxation + corporate income taxation should equal the taxation of individual incomes. Why should small businesses and people have the same tax rate as a corporation when they don't have the same liability protection mechanisms? Double taxation is a pretty poor way for society to gain back what's lost* through limited liability. By double taxing equity you encourage more debt, which means more bankruptcy and more losses to society. *Limited liability is thought to be a good thing overall for society. C-corps are also generally big, so the pay a higher tax rate anyways.
But that's not true always. The current owners of the company don't always want to dilute the vision of their company by seeking more equity. So they'll obtain loans to raise capital, which also means more bankruptcy and more losses to society. Are you now arguing that all raising capital is bad or just that double taxation distorts the market such that it encourages more debt raising activity?
Still referring to Wolfstan's post, if corporate income taxation + dividend taxation should equal small business owner taxation income, what should be given up for the fact that shareholders aren't financially responsible for their company while other businesses are. If you're going to complain about double taxation because it encourages to much liability, then what's the alternative to double taxation? What other responsibility should be attached given that corporate owners enjoy the right not to have their income and wealth confiscated while individuals do not have that right when facing losses.
|
On March 03 2014 14:04 DetriusXii wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 12:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 03 2014 12:29 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 12:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2014 12:17 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 11:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2014 10:06 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 09:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 03 2014 09:36 DetriusXii wrote:On March 02 2014 15:48 Wolfstan wrote:
[quote]
The idea is still the same as I thought it best to explain how extracting money from the capital refuted his point better as he referenced the value of capital(capital markets) as % of income(the real economy metric that best supports his argument) and his argument that the solution is to somehow shift more value into the real economy from the capital economy.
You are more concerned about the flow from the real economy into the capital markets it seems, I agree with you but probably for different reasons. I'm more concerned about uneducated Joe Blow using his after tax income that should be spent on consumer purchase stepping into the capital markets for that 40k equity in our previous example and getting eaten alive by the smart money. Both that is also one of the best ways to achieve the goal of social mobility so I am also advocate of it.
You seem more interested in the 2k earnings made from the company? The short answer is it's not usually a problem as that money usually stays in the real economy through capital allocation, whether its spent to grow the company, or released as a dividend. The 2k earnings have already been taxed at 15%(35% at the richest, most unequal companies) and the government taxes again for cash dividend at 20% for the richest, most unholy assholes among us. Say Mr. Owner wants a lavish lifestyle, so the company declares a 1000 dollar dividend, he takes his 500 bucks pays the government their 100 bucks and the 400 stays in the real economy buying goods that the 99% produce. So congratulations, Mr owner still has 40000 net worth only paid taxes on the lifestyle he wanted, and people are still upset with him for having more net worth than he can spend in a lifetime.
In a perfect world rates for income tax = interest tax = dividend tax + corporate tax = capital gains tax + corporate tax. But hey inequality would still exist eh?
Or were you talking about wealth generated as in capital turning a company with 3000 in assets and 1000 in earnings into a 11000 asset/2000 earnings company when you feel labor should have grown the company? Just nitpicking about your perfect world tax rates. Corporations enjoy limited liability meaning that shareholders cannot be targeted to cover the liabilities of a corporation. Partnership owners and small business owners can be prosecuted for their business liabilities up to the point of declaring bankruptcy. Clearly, since you're insinuating that it's unfair for corporations to be double taxed, how do you propose their inequality of liabilities be covered? Should all present shareholders be identified so that their wealth can be sought after to cover corporate liabilities? Not sure about Canada, but in the US small businesses and partnerships have ownership forms that offer limited liability too. I'm not going to say that those forms are *always* accessible, but they are accessible. Can you link to an example? It still doesn't address the fact that corporations are not the equal creature in income as the owners of a corporation get to absolve themselves of the responsibility for the financial responsibilities of the corporation. Corporations aren't equal, so double taxation shouldn't be bloody murder when applied to them. Corporate taxation is completely unrelated to the issue of shareholder liability for corporate debt. And why is that so? Just think about it. What does taxing a corporation have to do with sticking the corporate owners with the liabilities of the corporation? Nothing. They are two distinct issues. Well, what does complaining about the unequal taxation of a corporation have to do with the taxing of an individual? Nothing, because they are different structures. Wolfstan had proposed that the dividend taxation + corporate income taxation should equal the taxation of individual incomes. Why should small businesses and people have the same tax rate as a corporation when they don't have the same liability protection mechanisms? Double taxation is a pretty poor way for society to gain back what's lost* through limited liability. By double taxing equity you encourage more debt, which means more bankruptcy and more losses to society. *Limited liability is thought to be a good thing overall for society. C-corps are also generally big, so the pay a higher tax rate anyways. But that's not true always. The current owners of the company don't always want to dilute the vision of their company by seeking more equity. So they'll obtain loans to raise capital, which also means more bankruptcy and more losses to society. Are you now arguing that all raising capital is bad or just that double taxation distorts the market such that it encourages more debt raising activity?Still referring to Wolfstan's post, if corporate income taxation + dividend taxation should equal small business owner taxation income, what should be given up for the fact that shareholders aren't financially responsible for their company while other businesses are. If you're going to complain about double taxation because it encourages to much liability, then what's the alternative to double taxation? What other responsibility should be attached given that corporate owners enjoy the right not to have their income and wealth confiscated while individuals do not have that right when facing losses.
Double taxation makes debt financing cheaper than equity financing (generally, so not always) so it's a market distortion, yes.
Currently, and again generally, corporate tax + div tax > individual tax. As far as I figure, various business forms should face similar taxation. The trend has been to extend limited liability to all businesses, which I think is the right direction.
|
On March 02 2014 13:57 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 08:47 itsjustatank wrote:On March 02 2014 08:44 FallDownMarigold wrote:
USA stormed into Iraq in '03 without UNSC blessing. I can't really take Obamanator seriously when scold Russia for storming into Ukraine... The United States upheld UN Security Council resolution 1441 in its invasion of Iraq in 2003. That resolution was enacted and agreed to previously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441In addition, the Gulf War only ended with a ceasefire. The no-fly zones that followed were a continuation of the mission. So was the invasion in 2003. The invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and various other states in 2003 was perfectly illegal with regards to international law, more specifically art. 2 par. 4 of the UN Charter prohibiting the use of force against another country. The Security Council's resolution 1441 certainly did not grant the U.S., or any other state, the right to use force against Iraq. Article 42 of the Charter, which grants the SC the legal authority to decide the use of force against a country, was not invoked in the resolution. Resolution 1441 clearly stated that Iraq had to comply with previous resolutions and various obligations pertaining to UN inspections but it did not include a provision authorizing the use of force against Iraq should it fail to comply with its obligations. Another resolution authorizing the use of force should have been passed before the U.S. intervention for it to be legal, but no such resolution was ever passed.
i never thought that us was the big bad wolf...
|
In the other thread as well, put here due to its relation to US politics:
We, the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States and the President of the European Council and President of the European Commission, join together today to condemn the Russian Federation’s clear violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, in contravention of Russia’s obligations under the UN Charter and its 1997 basing agreement with Ukraine. We call on Russia to address any ongoing security or human rights concerns that it has with Ukraine through direct negotiations, and/or via international observation or mediation under the auspices of the UN or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. We stand ready to assist with these efforts.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/02/g-7-leaders-statement
|
On March 03 2014 13:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 13:07 aksfjh wrote:On March 03 2014 12:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 03 2014 12:29 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 12:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2014 12:17 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 11:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2014 10:06 DetriusXii wrote:On March 03 2014 09:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 03 2014 09:36 DetriusXii wrote:
[quote]
Just nitpicking about your perfect world tax rates. Corporations enjoy limited liability meaning that shareholders cannot be targeted to cover the liabilities of a corporation. Partnership owners and small business owners can be prosecuted for their business liabilities up to the point of declaring bankruptcy. Clearly, since you're insinuating that it's unfair for corporations to be double taxed, how do you propose their inequality of liabilities be covered? Should all present shareholders be identified so that their wealth can be sought after to cover corporate liabilities?
Not sure about Canada, but in the US small businesses and partnerships have ownership forms that offer limited liability too. I'm not going to say that those forms are *always* accessible, but they are accessible. Can you link to an example? It still doesn't address the fact that corporations are not the equal creature in income as the owners of a corporation get to absolve themselves of the responsibility for the financial responsibilities of the corporation. Corporations aren't equal, so double taxation shouldn't be bloody murder when applied to them. Corporate taxation is completely unrelated to the issue of shareholder liability for corporate debt. And why is that so? Just think about it. What does taxing a corporation have to do with sticking the corporate owners with the liabilities of the corporation? Nothing. They are two distinct issues. Well, what does complaining about the unequal taxation of a corporation have to do with the taxing of an individual? Nothing, because they are different structures. Wolfstan had proposed that the dividend taxation + corporate income taxation should equal the taxation of individual incomes. Why should small businesses and people have the same tax rate as a corporation when they don't have the same liability protection mechanisms? Double taxation is a pretty poor way for society to gain back what's lost* through limited liability. By double taxing equity you encourage more debt, which means more bankruptcy and more losses to society. *Limited liability is thought to be a good thing overall for society. C-corps are also generally big, so the pay a higher tax rate anyways. Higher marginal/nominal tax rate. Mileage may vary though. True, same with personal tax rate though
Not to the same extent.
|
On March 03 2014 15:57 Introvert wrote:In the other thread as well, put here due to its relation to US politics: Show nested quote +We, the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States and the President of the European Council and President of the European Commission, join together today to condemn the Russian Federation’s clear violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, in contravention of Russia’s obligations under the UN Charter and its 1997 basing agreement with Ukraine. We call on Russia to address any ongoing security or human rights concerns that it has with Ukraine through direct negotiations, and/or via international observation or mediation under the auspices of the UN or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. We stand ready to assist with these efforts. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/02/g-7-leaders-statement
So where does this statement fall on the spectrum of retaliatory response? Above or below the writing and delivery of an angry letter? I particularly like how they don't even demand the withdrawal of Russian troops from the Ukraine.
|
Norway28873 Posts
A demand must be followed by a "or else".
|
In fairness, let me say this about taking a more aggressive approach on the Ukraine: I'm not sure why anyone should bother when the Ukrainians aren't even trying to oust the Russians themselves.
|
On March 03 2014 22:50 xDaunt wrote:
In fairness, let me say this about taking a more aggressive approach on the Ukraine: I'm not sure why anyone should bother when the Ukrainians aren't even trying to oust the Russians themselves.
Because they cant. They wont win a war and considering the soldiers are already in there streets what other means do they have?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
