21–30 of 68 posts
It's not shaming them for their tax rates -- we should shame Congress for not raising taxes, if we all agree taxes should be higher on large corporations. It's shaming them for legal, but unethical behavior. There's a lot of behavior that falls into the area of "legal, but shitty." Large corporations gaming the system to avoid paying taxes falls into that. Don't kid yourself that we can ever totally eliminate this ki…
It is crazy that the government runs myriad business and job subsidy programs while also tax penalizing the most successful, forward-looking companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is exploiting tax loopholes really unethical? Some would argue that the government is the biggest waste of money there is. I'm not saying that's my belief, but let's entertain that thought for a minute. If you believe that the government wastes most, say 95%, of its money on stupid things that should never receive a dollar from anyone (like the war in Iraq, to pick a random one), and you believe that you personally c…
It's unethical because we're all on the hook for the money the government spends. That's the social contract. If you think the war in Iraq was a big waste of money (as I do), then great, lobby against that. But once the decision's made, we're all on the hook for the money and wiggling out is akin to welching on a bet or defaulting on a loan when you have the money to pay. Funnily enough, most of the people who compla…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is exploiting tax loopholes really unethical? Some would argue that the government is the biggest waste of money there is. I'm not saying that's my belief, but let's entertain that thought for a minute. If you believe that the government wastes most, say 95%, of its money on stupid things that should never receive a dollar from anyone (like the war in Iraq, to pick a random one), and you believe that you personally c…
It's unethical because we're all on the hook for the money the government spends. That's the social contract. If you think the war in Iraq was a big waste of money (as I do), then great, lobby against that. But once the decision's made, we're all on the hook for the money and wiggling out is akin to welching on a bet or defaulting on a loan when you have the money to pay. Funnily enough, most of the people who compla…
It's like voting for two lizards, one of which is the lesser evil. We change the outcome by voting for the lesser evil and trying to convince everyone that this lizard is the right choice. Of course, we didn't really do shit. The system remain unchanged and the evil lizards are still in control.
The problem of politics is not any one particular problem or any one particular candidate, but that the whole decision-making process is rotten.
It's not shaming them for their tax rates -- we should shame Congress for not raising taxes, if we all agree taxes should be higher on large corporations. It's shaming them for legal, but unethical behavior. There's a lot of behavior that falls into the area of "legal, but shitty." Large corporations gaming the system to avoid paying taxes falls into that. Don't kid yourself that we can ever totally eliminate this ki…
Is exploiting tax loopholes really unethical? Some would argue that the government is the biggest waste of money there is. I'm not saying that's my belief, but let's entertain that thought for a minute. If you believe that the government wastes most, say 95%, of its money on stupid things that should never receive a dollar from anyone (like the war in Iraq, to pick a random one), and you believe that you personally c…
It's not about what Gates personally gives or what Buffet might personally write a check for, if he feels he isn't paying enough. The discussion is about the hundreds of billions in aggregate that corporations and the wealthy are not paying.
And we certainly aren't seeing hundreds of billions in Gates-style charity from corporations and the other super-wealthy.
Consider also that Gates fabulous charity is still small compared to the aggregate donation of Americans. His charity is notable only for having come from a single person and for his ability to therefore set priorities directly. It's not remotely clear that aggregated wealth, even if it were to always result in Gates'-style donations, results in more net charity than if it were taxed, spent and thus diffused back into the economy where the rest of America might earn it and donate to charity in smaller individual amounts.
Government tax revenue, after all, does not get destroyed. It gets spent. Perhaps inefficiently, but spent nonetheless. And say what you will about cronyism, you'd quickly find yourself in the rhetorical weeds if you tried to argue that wealth generated off government inefficiency or misdirected priority is somehow tainted and thus can't be expected to produce charity from those who make their living from it. Not when a cursory glance over government revenue flows creates a list of the largest US government contractors and vendors that looks almost exactly like the list of corporations and wealthy individuals we're trying to excuse for their charity.
(Edit: cleaned up some phrasing)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is exploiting tax loopholes really unethical? Some would argue that the government is the biggest waste of money there is. I'm not saying that's my belief, but let's entertain that thought for a minute. If you believe that the government wastes most, say 95%, of its money on stupid things that should never receive a dollar from anyone (like the war in Iraq, to pick a random one), and you believe that you personally c…
Unfortunately you've missed the point of why it is unethical, everyone else has to pay more to support your avoidance instead. If they paid their way then the overall tax rate would be lower for everyone, instead of just for the rich. The irony being they're the ones who need it the least. So effectively Bill Gates made the decision to make everyone else pay more tax so that he could go and cure Malaria in Africa. Ca…
That is the truth in theory. In practice, the US federal government these days borrows 30% of the money it spends; the percentage has been growing through the years.
If they paid their fair share of taxes, then either (a) the government would borrow less -- or, more likely (b) the government would spend more (and the population in general you may or may not be the beneficiary).
The "if you pay less taxes I pay more taxes" only works in a closed system. IIRC, the last time the US wasn't, at the end of the day, a pure borrower is in the '70s.
edit: fixed 50% to 30%. There's an underlying philosophical discussion, but I'll just use the official government number.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is exploiting tax loopholes really unethical? Some would argue that the government is the biggest waste of money there is. I'm not saying that's my belief, but let's entertain that thought for a minute. If you believe that the government wastes most, say 95%, of its money on stupid things that should never receive a dollar from anyone (like the war in Iraq, to pick a random one), and you believe that you personally c…
Unfortunately you've missed the point of why it is unethical, everyone else has to pay more to support your avoidance instead. If they paid their way then the overall tax rate would be lower for everyone, instead of just for the rich. The irony being they're the ones who need it the least. So effectively Bill Gates made the decision to make everyone else pay more tax so that he could go and cure Malaria in Africa. Ca…
It's not shaming them for their tax rates -- we should shame Congress for not raising taxes, if we all agree taxes should be higher on large corporations. It's shaming them for legal, but unethical behavior. There's a lot of behavior that falls into the area of "legal, but shitty." Large corporations gaming the system to avoid paying taxes falls into that. Don't kid yourself that we can ever totally eliminate this ki…
Is exploiting tax loopholes really unethical? Some would argue that the government is the biggest waste of money there is. I'm not saying that's my belief, but let's entertain that thought for a minute. If you believe that the government wastes most, say 95%, of its money on stupid things that should never receive a dollar from anyone (like the war in Iraq, to pick a random one), and you believe that you personally c…
If you assume your correct you can make anything sound reasonable. However, despite popular opinion the US government is reasonable efficient given it's size, it's the goals that are poorly thought out not it's methods. If you want to suggest otherwise you need to compare total income with total output and compare with more than just one rich dude while ignoring people who buy 80+ million dollar Yacht's and rarely use them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure you're right to single out corporations here. It seems like all the Real People I know who are aware of simple things they could do to pay less in taxes end up doing them as well.
Difference being that Real People can't spend 10 million setting up foreign subsidiaries in order to avoid taxation on a billion in income. Different math comes into play when you can fill an office building with lawyers for your tax policy.
The real problem here is twofold:
1. The tax system is too complicated and continues to get more complicated with special interest riders and so forth; and
2. Large companies are free to shop around for friendly tax jurisdictions. The natural endgame here is that you need to treat money going to friendly jurisdictions as avoiding income and tax it at source.
(2) is no doubt controversial but I see it as inevitable.
An example of (1) is the tax regulation surrounding the expatriation of technology, something legal and blessed by the IRS. It goes to Ireland and money gets funnelled there and then through the Netherlands. It's time to cut that shit out.
For individuals I really do think it's time for the flat tax. Call it 25% of what you earn above $20,000 with no deductions and be done with it.