171–180 of 404 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doctor is spending real money on attending medical school, which pays professors. It is an equivalent.
The medical school is the equivalent, which likely deducts the salary of the professors (if it’s private). Most private schools also pay no taxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's not equivalent. An equivalent example would be a person who makes a large amount of money in their 20s, but spends the majority of it on things that could conceivably appreciate, such that their income artificially represents a loss. Then all of a sudden, whatever they spent money on becomes extremely profitable in their mid 30s. Like someone getting a $150k student loan to go to college and/or post-college…
A loan isn’t a loss. A business can’t deduct that either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> tax progression will be removed, so that people will have a chance of levelling up Progressive taxation has the exact opposite function to what you're suggesting. It's a mechanism designed to reduce economic inequality and the poverty among the low income workers. Your comment sounds like a rationalization from a middle/upper income person. > it is not uncommon to pay over 40% of tax That figure is misleading, beca…
It sounds like both of you want Fair Tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not equivalent. An equivalent example would be a person who makes a large amount of money in their 20s, but spends the majority of it on things that could conceivably appreciate, such that their income artificially represents a loss. Then all of a sudden, whatever they spent money on becomes extremely profitable in their mid 30s. Someone doing that will normally do it within the confines of an LLC by conventio…
> That's not equivalent. An equivalent example would be a person who makes a large amount of money in their 20s, but spends the majority of it on things that could conceivably appreciate, such that their income artificially represents a loss. Then all of a sudden, whatever they spent money on becomes extremely profitable in their mid 30s. Like someone getting a $150k student loan to go to college and/or post-college…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The purpose is to equalize the amount of tax that companies pay. Consider the following example: Assuming a tax rate of 30%, Company A has net income (profit) of $100 in year 1 and $100 in year two pays $60 in tax on a total profit of $200. Company B has a net loss of $100 in year 1 and net income of $300 ni year 2 has a total profit still of $200. Assuming loss carryforwards are allowed, Company B pays $60 in tax st…
I understand why the rule exists. What I don’t understand is why a similar rule doesn’t exist for people. Here’s another example of where it could help. Take two men, one earns $75k/year (let’s say inflation adjusted) for thirty years as a bus driver. The other plays in the NFL for 1 year makes $2MM and thereafter only makes $250k over the next twenty five years. They’ve made the same amount of money over their lifet…
This is crazy how economy is tilted in favour of these big corporations. If you are a worker, it is not uncommon to pay over 40% of tax and if you work on your own small business you can pay even more and have very little left to reinvest. Then you have progressive tax that is preventing you from saving much - if you want to save for a deposit to buy a house, spend time on education and getting a better job, you'll g…
Yep. I just got an equity payout from an acquisition. It’s a lot of money, though it isn’t going to allow me to retire early. Would be enough for a house down payment, which is good enough for me! However, I am paying literally 40% in taxes due to how it was paid out. As someone who desperately needs this money, it’s devastating. To hear that large corps can weasel their way out of paying is extremely infuriating.
You can weasel out of it as well. You need to exercise your options at least a year before acquisition. Often you can do this even if you haven't vested the options yet.
Missing out on local investments, IP offshoring, and the capital gains tax rates.
So what we have is a class of people paying significantly lower tax rates than they should be, corporations not paying anything at all, and investment money shifting out of the US.
But at least we can claim to have a progressive tax system, or whatever it is that idealists want to call it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's not equivalent. An equivalent example would be a person who makes a large amount of money in their 20s, but spends the majority of it on things that could conceivably appreciate, such that their income artificially represents a loss. Then all of a sudden, whatever they spent money on becomes extremely profitable in their mid 30s. Like someone getting a $150k student loan to go to college and/or post-college…
No, because that's a loan rather than an R&D expenditure from income. I guess that probably sounds flippant, but the mechanics are different. If a business received a loan, the tax prospects wouldn't be as favorable as expenditure either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The purpose is to equalize the amount of tax that companies pay. Consider the following example: Assuming a tax rate of 30%, Company A has net income (profit) of $100 in year 1 and $100 in year two pays $60 in tax on a total profit of $200. Company B has a net loss of $100 in year 1 and net income of $300 ni year 2 has a total profit still of $200. Assuming loss carryforwards are allowed, Company B pays $60 in tax st…
I understand why the rule exists. What I don’t understand is why a similar rule doesn’t exist for people. Here’s another example of where it could help. Take two men, one earns $75k/year (let’s say inflation adjusted) for thirty years as a bus driver. The other plays in the NFL for 1 year makes $2MM and thereafter only makes $250k over the next twenty five years. They’ve made the same amount of money over their lifet…
it makes sense that companies are taxed differently than individuals. corporate revenues and assets ultimately end up in the pockets of real people, either as wages or capital gains.
that said, I do think you make a good point about income tax. it would be more fair if there were some smoothing over time. another example of someone who might get screwed is a contractor with highly variable income. if I make $75k every year, and you oscillate back and forth between $25k and $125k, you pay a lot more income tax for no real reason.
Is that calculation really correct? Does it count tax for all the employees? Does it count all specialized tax for things like gas or VAT, for all the things Netflix buys in their operation? What about all the media that Netflix buys and produces? What about all the taxes levied there on salaries and other activities? The article also talks about "income" and not "revenue"...