Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk

Next question?

Your point that corporate taxation is smoke and mirrors displays a certain amount of naivete. Taxes or not, corporations don't pay out all their income as dividends. You point would only be valid if all corporations liquidated on an annual basis.

There. And I did it all with a bare minimum discussion of taxes.

Next question is why should person A be forced to give person B something they haven't earned. If you want to make sure people have adequate housing, healthcare, food, bus service, be honest and propose a tax increase. But if the employer and employee are in agreement about a particular wage (as revealed by the hire and the acceptance), why meddle?

On two, that's a timing issue, not one of principle. So Microsoft has $38B in cash. Microsoft, not individuals. Why should they pay tax on that (esp. when it increases the value of hte stock, on which capital gains tax will be paid upon sale).

I find one of the most pernicious problems with teh current tax code is the efforts to "hide" taxes by making their existence unclear or the effect of various provisions hard to determine. If government has to rely on chicanery in order to support itself, it's hardly able to claim the consent of the governed.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
blah blah blah not really taxing corporations

Right. But, given that we have a tax system in which corporations are taxed, or a tax is imposed at the corporate level, do we want to let some that have their main operations here, and all their officers and all board members here, be taxed less because they are nominally incorporated in Bermuda?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Right. But, given that we have a tax system in which corporations are taxed, or a tax is imposed at the corporate level, do we want to let some that have their main operations here, and all their officers and all board members here, be taxed less because they are nominally incorporated in Bermuda?

a legitimate point on which I don't care to debate the arcana of whether they're legitimately "foreign" corporations that we should or should not tax differently than US corps.

it's all so ethereal, given that corps. aren't people, so you can't make some rule like you have to live in Monaco for 10 years before you get to stop paying US taxes. Or pay Bill Clinton for a pardon.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Next question is why should person A be forced to give person B something they haven't earned. If you want to make sure people have adequate housing, healthcare, food, bus service, be honest and propose a tax increase. But if the employer and employee are in agreement about a particular wage (as revealed by the hire and the acceptance), why meddle?

Once again, you're assuming that the market is both free and efficient. If you honestly believe that, then there is nothing I can say that will be adequate to persuade you.

I think you're being willfully obtuse here, though. Under your theory, nobody would take a job that didn;t pay them enough to meet their basic needs. However, if the minimum wage is all that's offered to them, are they freely participating in the market?

On two, that's a timing issue, not one of principle. So Microsoft has $38B in cash. Microsoft, not individuals. Why should they pay tax on that (esp. when it increases the value of hte stock, on which capital gains tax will be paid upon sale).

I find one of the most pernicious problems with teh current tax code is the efforts to "hide" taxes by making their existence unclear or the effect of various provisions hard to determine. If government has to rely on chicanery in order to support itself, it's hardly able to claim the consent of the governed.

Nobody's hiding anything here. The corporate tax is an excise tax on the privilege of doing business in corporate form. The taxpayer is paying for the state's sponsorship of its limited liability, continuity of life, free transferability of interests, and the ability to separate management from ownership.

All of these benefits are conferred on the corporation by the laws of the state and thee United States. The courts have recognized this principle since 1912. If you don't like it, invest in LLCs and partnerships only. There's no "chicanery" involved.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
a legitimate point on which I don't care to debate the arcana of whether they're legitimately "foreign" corporations that we should or should not tax differently than US corps.

it's all so ethereal, given that corps. aren't people, so you can't make some rule like you have to live in Monaco for 10 years before you get to stop paying US taxes. Or pay Bill Clinton for a pardon.

Actually, you're wrong. In a juridical sense, corporations are people. They contract in their own name, they can own property, they have access to the courts, they exist notwithstanding the life or death of any of their owners at any given point in time.

Your difficulty appears not to be with the arcana of tax policy, but with the legal status of the corporate body.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
a legitimate point on which I don't care to debate the arcana of whether they're legitimately "foreign" corporations that we should or should not tax differently than US corps.

it's all so ethereal, given that corps. aren't people, so you can't make some rule like you have to live in Monaco for 10 years before you get to stop paying US taxes. Or pay Bill Clinton for a pardon.

I think you are missing a verb or a colon or something in the first paragraph.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan [*]Corporate Taxation (S. 872). Democrats make sure companies pay their fair share of taxes to the U.S. government instead of keeping profits overseas.

Is Latvia tax friendly?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
But if the employer and employee are in agreement about a particular wage (as revealed by the hire and the acceptance), why meddle?

Indeed. And if employer and employee are in agreement about working conditions (as revealed by the hire, acceptance, and continued employment), why meddle? And kids have that freedom, too -- let their parents decide whether they should work or not.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Have you merged with a Catholic entity yet?

Look, missy, take it to the FB.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
2. If a veteran is disabled, s/he should be paid until he would have retired to replace the lost income. Once s/he would have retired, s/he shoudl get the retirement benefits. Why double the benefit?

I read posts like this and think to myself, thank God that we have conservatives in this country to ensure that disabled veterans don't suck us dry.

Taking it to the FB.....

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I read posts like this and think to myself, thank God that we have conservatives in this country to ensure that disabled veterans don't suck us dry.

Taking it to the FB.....

I'm down to about 8th on the seriatim of sucking us dry. You missed 1-7 since last night.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm down to about 8th on the seriatim of sucking us dry. You missed 1-7 since last night.

mmmm, sucking dry?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"The good and capable people of the Middle East all deserve responsible leadership. For too long, many people in that region have been victims and subjects. They deserve to be active citizens."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3248119.stm

[taxwonk]

Or is there another reason nobody's discussing politics today?

Appropos of which....

Any thoughts on Bush's sudden reacquaintance with reality in the social security arena? I'm beginning to think that if the Adminstration's serious about taking the heat off the Rs for benefit cuts and increasing the level of progressivity, there may actually be a way to arrive at agreement on a reform bill. Am I being too optimistic?