Jump to content


Tax avoidance


  • Please log in to reply
165 replies to this topic

#1 tikipete

tikipete

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,394 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 09:31 PM

The most absurd of all tax rules is getting some scrutiny.

 

http://video.cnbc.co...ideo=3000176447



#2 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,236 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 10:09 PM

The most absurd of all tax rules is getting some scrutiny.

 

http://video.cnbc.co...ideo=3000176447

 

The most absurd of all tax policy has come home to roost. 

 

Do you pay more in taxes than the law dictates? 

 

Flat tax paid by everyone that works.  Skin in the game.



#3 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 18 June 2013 - 01:07 AM

The most absurd of all tax rules is getting some scrutiny.

 

http://video.cnbc.co...ideo=3000176447

 

The most absurd of all tax policy has come home to roost. 

 

Do you pay more in taxes than the law dictates? 

 

Flat tax paid by everyone that works.  Skin in the game.

 

And what - no taxes by those wealthy enough not to need to work?

 

I always wonder why investment income is always value more highly by the right than money you earn by the sweat of your labor.

 

Actually, I don't wonder that at all.



#4 WarBird

WarBird

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:lake michigan

Posted 18 June 2013 - 01:19 AM

 

The most absurd of all tax rules is getting some scrutiny.
 
http://video.cnbc.co...ideo=3000176447

 
The most absurd of all tax policy has come home to roost. 
 
Do you pay more in taxes than the law dictates? 
 
Flat tax paid by everyone that works.  Skin in the game.

 
And what - no taxes by those wealthy enough not to need to work?
 
I always wonder why investment income is always value more highly by the right than money you earn by the sweat of your labor.
 
Actually, I don't wonder that at all.
Has not a fucking thing to do with "dividends are after the corp tax liability has been paid"?????

#5 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,919 posts

Posted 18 June 2013 - 01:28 AM

 

The most absurd of all tax rules is getting some scrutiny.

 

http://video.cnbc.co...ideo=3000176447

 

The most absurd of all tax policy has come home to roost.

 

Do you pay more in taxes than the law dictates?

 

Flat tax paid by everyone that works. Skin in the game.

 

And what - no taxes by those wealthy enough not to need to work?

 

I always wonder why investment income is always value more highly by the right than money you earn by the sweat of your labor.

 

Actually, I don't wonder that at all.

 

Really? I pay tax on dividends and interest.



#6 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,236 posts

Posted 18 June 2013 - 01:28 AM

 

The most absurd of all tax rules is getting some scrutiny.

 

http://video.cnbc.co...ideo=3000176447

 

The most absurd of all tax policy has come home to roost. 

 

Do you pay more in taxes than the law dictates? 

 

Flat tax paid by everyone that works.  Skin in the game.

 

And what - no taxes by those wealthy enough not to need to work?

 

I always wonder why investment income is always value more highly by the right than money you earn by the sweat of your labor.

 

Actually, I don't wonder that at all.

 

Flat tax would include investment income, at a lower rate.  

 

How many times do we need to tax the same dollar of income?



#7 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 18 June 2013 - 09:14 PM

 

 

The most absurd of all tax rules is getting some scrutiny.

 

http://video.cnbc.co...ideo=3000176447

 

The most absurd of all tax policy has come home to roost.

 

Do you pay more in taxes than the law dictates?

 

Flat tax paid by everyone that works. Skin in the game.

 

And what - no taxes by those wealthy enough not to need to work?

 

I always wonder why investment income is always value more highly by the right than money you earn by the sweat of your labor.

 

Actually, I don't wonder that at all.

 

Really? I pay tax on dividends and interest.

 

So do we.  At half the effective rate as money reported on W-2 forms.



#8 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 18 June 2013 - 09:20 PM

 

 

The most absurd of all tax rules is getting some scrutiny.

 

http://video.cnbc.co...ideo=3000176447

 

The most absurd of all tax policy has come home to roost. 

 

Do you pay more in taxes than the law dictates? 

 

Flat tax paid by everyone that works.  Skin in the game.

 

And what - no taxes by those wealthy enough not to need to work?

 

I always wonder why investment income is always value more highly by the right than money you earn by the sweat of your labor.

 

Actually, I don't wonder that at all.

 

Flat tax would include investment income, at a lower rate.  

 

How many times do we need to tax the same dollar of income?

 

Changing your plan?  Your first post said "everyone that works".

 

--------------

 

The "same dollar" fallacy, again?  There is no such thing as an "eternal dollar" that keeps getting taxed over and over again, it's a bogus argument.

 

It's not, never, the "same dollar". It's when the dollar changes hands that the tax occurs.

 

When you earn a dollar, it is taxed.  Then when you spend it on taxable items, it is taxed again.  It is not the SAME dollar, it is a dollar changing hands.

 

When 3M Earns a dollar, it is taxed.  When they give ME a dollar in dividends, it is also taxed.  It's the transaction, the changing of hands that the government jumps into.  That "dollar" was earned once by 3M, and a dollar was earned by ME from owing 3M stock.  It's not the same dollar.

 

 

 

BTW - GE has "...paid a dividend each quarter for over one hundred years. The dividend payment amount Per Share is the actual amount paid per common share. No adjustments were taken for stock splits, but the splits are shown for clarification."  From their own web site.

 

Last year GE paid no taxes...do when was that mysterious Eternal Dividend Dollar taxed?



#9 No.6

No.6

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,064 posts
  • Location:Portmeirion
  • Interests:Danger

Posted 18 June 2013 - 10:04 PM

God forbid we spur investment. Flies in the face of government run everything!

#10 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 18 June 2013 - 11:15 PM

God forbid we spur investment. Flies in the face of government run everything!

 

We've been Stimulating the top 1% since Dubya's first term - where are the job's?  What has trickled down?

 

Here are some fascinating graphs - can we draw any conclusions from them?

 

Chart_1.jpg

 

Chart_2.jpg

 

PolicyBasics_WhereDoFederalTaxRevsComeFr

 

taxmageddon.png



#11 No.6

No.6

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,064 posts
  • Location:Portmeirion
  • Interests:Danger

Posted 18 June 2013 - 11:22 PM

Right, taxes are good for you.

#12 tikipete

tikipete

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,394 posts

Posted 18 June 2013 - 11:29 PM

I'm still waiting for someone to cite the economic necessity of taxation. Taxation- a choice.



#13 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:08 AM

Right, taxes are good for you.

 

Point missed.  Next!



#14 'moondance44

'moondance44

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,165 posts
  • Location:Dodgy Bit Of Stamford, CT and The Cows, Graveyard of LIS where bluefish get blown off wire leaders

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:15 AM

I guess it depends on your point of view. Like if you actually go to work or not. If you do and you give more and more to the government and get less and less in return to support more and more people who contribute less and less, you think you've paid enough.

And we've been stimulating the top 1 percent since George Washington's first term. Try to figure out why.

#15 R Booth

R Booth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,841 posts
  • Location:Just out of eyesight....
  • Interests:Postponing my funeral 'til tomorrow....

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:37 AM

'Cuz you just can't have enough muthafuking taxes......



#16 WarBird

WarBird

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:lake michigan

Posted 19 June 2013 - 01:30 AM

Last year GE paid no taxes(had no tax liability)...do when was that mysterious Eternal Dividend Dollar taxed?

Fixed,  BJ you are way smarter than that



#17 WarBird

WarBird

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:lake michigan

Posted 19 June 2013 - 01:34 AM

I sold a boat a few years ago.  As we were drawing up the docs the buyer pointed out, "Look, how many times has sales tax been paid on this thing?"



#18 WarBird

WarBird

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:lake michigan

Posted 19 June 2013 - 01:36 AM

Money should never be taxed just because it traded hands.  VAT all the way!!!!!



#19 WarBird

WarBird

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:lake michigan

Posted 19 June 2013 - 01:38 AM

I have a great garden. Grat value to me.  I will send the fuckers at IRS some tomatoes and carrots next april.



#20 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,811 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 03:14 AM

I'm still waiting for someone to cite the economic necessity of taxation. Taxation- a choice.

 

Freedom of choice. The choice being either pay up or go to prison.... :ph34r:



#21 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,919 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 03:40 AM

I sold a boat a few years ago.  As we were drawing up the docs the buyer pointed out, "Look, how many times has sales tax been paid on this thing?"

 

There were three of us who were partners in a Cal 25 a few years ago.  One partner decided to move to NC and wanted out.  The remaining two paid her her third and went to get her name off the title.  The great state of Maryland demanded that we basically sell the boat to ourselves and pay sales tax on it to get a new title.



#22 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 03:51 AM

Last year GE paid no taxes(had no tax liability)...do when was that mysterious Eternal Dividend Dollar taxed?

Fixed,  BJ you are way smarter than that

 

Am I?

 

What I'm seeing is things like this:

 

GE keeps an increasing share of its profits overseas. But it also makes the most of "active financing," a tax break that allows multinationals to avoid paying tax on certain kinds of insurance and banking income.

 

When, for example, GE, through its lending arm, finances the sale of a jet engine in Ireland, it does not have to pay any U.S. tax on the income, provided the profits remain offshore. So popular has active financing become among corporations, that in 2008 the cost of the exemption to the U.S. Treasury was estimated at $4 billion a year.

 

"Transfer pricing" -- the minimization of the value of asset transactions between subsidiaries, especially ones overseas -- is used effectively by other companies.

 

Companies use what is called by tax experts a "Double Irish," in which the U.S. parent assigns ownership of intellectual property to an Irish subsidiary. A second Irish subsidiary pays royalties for its use, with the transaction going by way of the Netherlands and a tax haven such as Bermuda. Done right, the result is little or no tax paid anywhere to anyone.

 

Which looks to me like we've put in so many loopholes for companies like GE so they can make $5.1 Billion profit on their U.S. operations and avoid paying taxes by playing a shell game with their offshore subsidiaries.



I sold a boat a few years ago.  As we were drawing up the docs the buyer pointed out, "Look, how many times has sales tax been paid on this thing?"

 

You live in the wrong state for that...



#23 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 03:53 AM

I'm still waiting for someone to cite the economic necessity of taxation. Taxation- a choice.

 

What is the economic necessity of any shared communal resource?  Why do we need police & fire departments and roads?  Why not not privatize everything right down to the military?

 

TANSTAAFL



#24 R Booth

R Booth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,841 posts
  • Location:Just out of eyesight....
  • Interests:Postponing my funeral 'til tomorrow....

Posted 19 June 2013 - 03:55 AM

Hey BJ, ever use ANY available loophole come tax time? If so, then you really have nothing further to say about this topic that has any cred......



#25 benwynn

benwynn

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,016 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 03:57 AM

Just a handful of pixie dust sprinkled in a shipyard at night, and you wake up in the morning to one of these, for free.

 

 

 

 

nimitz9.jpg



#26 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 04:00 AM

Hey BJ, ever use ANY available loophole come tax time? If so, then you really have nothing further to say about this topic that has any cred......

 

We are not nearly wealthy enough to actually use any meaningful loopholes.  We take the same deductions as the rest of the 99.9% that we are a part of.

 

The problem is not them paying no taxes if they are doing it legally, the problem is perverting the tax laws to make ways for it to be legal for GE and other corporations to pay no taxes in the first place while making $Billions in profit in the U.S.

 

Those tax laws are not perverted for the like of you and I.



#27 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,919 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 04:14 AM

Hey BJ, ever use ANY available loophole come tax time? If so, then you really have nothing further to say about this topic that has any cred......

 

I believe there is a reason he declared himself a Florida resident.  I'm sure it had absolutely nothing to do with taxes.  Nope, not at all.  Nosirree.



#28 benwynn

benwynn

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,016 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 04:32 AM

These are grown from seeds.  Just a little water and sun, and bingo:

 

cloverleaf.jpg



#29 benwynn

benwynn

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,016 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 04:39 AM

If Governors are good, they wake up on Christmas morning to find that Santa has left them one of these:

 

san-francisco-airport-address.jpg



#30 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 04:49 AM

Hey BJ, ever use ANY available loophole come tax time? If so, then you really have nothing further to say about this topic that has any cred......

 

I believe there is a reason he declared himself a Florida resident.  I'm sure it had absolutely nothing to do with taxes.  Nope, not at all.  Nosirree.

 

That's where the mailing service is, specializes in supporting cruisers. 

 

I don't actually live anywhere (though am still paying a metric assload of taxes on my unsold, way over-assessed and over taxed house in RI), but I have to have a legal residence someplace.  Why on earth would I want to pay domestic taxes to a place I don't actually physically live or receive ANY benefit from, or even set foot in?  Nothing illegal OR immoral about that.

 

Short of my driver's license (which I paid for) and voting, I'm trying like heck to figure out what other services of FL that I actually use.  Not schools, not police, not fire, not roads, not infrastructure, telephone, electricity or anything that I can figure.  Help me here on why I should be paying state and local taxes in the U.S. since I don't live there?

 

That provided for an interesting discussion with Fidelity when I was opening a new account there...trying to fill out their USA PATRIOT Act forms and they kept insisting I had to have a legal residence.  To which I pointed out my "residence" as a PMB in Florida was fine with the IRS, the USCG, the State of Florida, all my other banks and credit cards and security firms...but Fidelity wanted a copy of a utility bill.  Until I told them to close all the accounts I opened as I could find someone that actually wanted my money, then they solved it in about two days.

 

We still pay Federal taxes. 



#31 tikipete

tikipete

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,394 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 11:10 AM

I'm still waiting for someone to cite the economic necessity of taxation. Taxation- a choice.

 

What is the economic necessity of any shared communal resource?  Why do we need police & fire departments and roads?  Why not not privatize everything right down to the military?

 

TANSTAAFL

With all due respect, that response is the best display of cognitive dissonance I've ever read.

 

If banks can invent money out of thin air for business purposes, there is no reason the public, through government, cannot apply the same principle for social needs.



#32 WarBird

WarBird

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:lake michigan

Posted 19 June 2013 - 11:50 AM

 

for GE and other corporations to pay no taxes in the first place while making $Billions in profit in the U.S.

A quick search shows GE earned ~ 10% profit on ~$150billion in sales. They paid ~ 1/3 of the profit in dividends. That indicates they kept approx 6.6% while spending(expenses) $135bil (taxed presumably) on payroll, facilities and suppliers, etc. To suggest that GE made billions with out paying tax is patently absurd BJ ,and you are, or should be, way above that kind of nonsense.

#33 No.6

No.6

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,064 posts
  • Location:Portmeirion
  • Interests:Danger

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:08 PM


Right, taxes are good for you.

 
Point missed.  Next!


The one who misses the point is you. Who actually pays corporate taxes?

#34 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,919 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:19 PM

 

Right, taxes are good for you.

 
Point missed.  Next!

 

The one who misses the point is you. Who actually pays corporate taxes?

 

There is this view that corporations are not actually owned by shareholders.  Who share the expenses and taxes of the corporation.



#35 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,811 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 01:37 PM

Indeed you have the right to pay taxes onto death. That we can ALL agree on.... :lol:



#36 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 01:54 PM

 

I'm still waiting for someone to cite the economic necessity of taxation. Taxation- a choice.

 

What is the economic necessity of any shared communal resource?  Why do we need police & fire departments and roads?  Why not not privatize everything right down to the military?

 

TANSTAAFL

With all due respect, that response is the best display of cognitive dissonance I've ever read.

 

If banks can invent money out of thin air for business purposes, there is no reason the public, through government, cannot apply the same principle for social needs.

 

So are you suggesting we can ask the highway fairy to build us roads?



#37 plchacker

plchacker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,771 posts
  • Location:Helwestern AL

Posted 19 June 2013 - 01:59 PM

Indeed you have the right to pay taxes onto death. That we can ALL agree on.... :lol:

If there is anything left over, after death as well.



#38 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 01:59 PM

for GE and other corporations to pay no taxes in the first place while making $Billions in profit in the U.S.

A quick search shows GE earned ~ 10% profit on ~$150billion in sales. They paid ~ 1/3 of the profit in dividends. That indicates they kept approx 6.6% while spending(expenses) $135bil (taxed presumably) on payroll, facilities and suppliers, etc. To suggest that GE made billions with out paying tax is patently absurd BJ ,and you are, or should be, way above that kind of nonsense.

 

OK, so you simply deny that GE paid no corporate income taxes in 2010 and other years and that makes it true?  You aren't taxed on expenses, they are deducted before you calculate profit.  Payroll taxes are a deductible expense that comes out before taxes and are not part of Corporate Income Tax.

 

Are you one of those same people that insist that 40% of America "pays no taxes"?  In spite of the fact that everyone that earns a W-2 pays payroll taxes, and everyone pays sales tax, property tax etc. indirectly?  Because it is the same thing - we are talking specifically about Corporate Income Tax, which is supposed to be paid on profit.  Profit comes from what is left over after expenses, whether some of those expenses are on other items that are taxed is irrelevant.

 

I live in a fact based reality, if you choose not to there is no point in further discussion on the topic.



#39 plchacker

plchacker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,771 posts
  • Location:Helwestern AL

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:00 PM

Oh yeah, I forgot, I hate the fucking IRS.



#40 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,811 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:01 PM

Indeed you have the right to pay taxes onto death. That we can ALL agree on.... :lol:

If there is anything left over, after death as well.

Death tax is 50% of everything my friend....



#41 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:01 PM

 

 

Right, taxes are good for you.

 
Point missed.  Next!

 

The one who misses the point is you. Who actually pays corporate taxes?

 

There is this view that corporations are not actually owned by shareholders.  Who share the expenses and taxes of the corporation.

 

How do you, as a shareholder, share the expenses?  I've never been asked to send in a check to any company I've owned stock in.



#42 tikipete

tikipete

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,394 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:03 PM

 

 

I'm still waiting for someone to cite the economic necessity of taxation. Taxation- a choice.

 

What is the economic necessity of any shared communal resource?  Why do we need police & fire departments and roads?  Why not not privatize everything right down to the military?

 

TANSTAAFL

With all due respect, that response is the best display of cognitive dissonance I've ever read.

 

If banks can invent money out of thin air for business purposes, there is no reason the public, through government, cannot apply the same principle for social needs.

 

So are you suggesting we can ask the highway fairy to build us roads?

And here we are, back to the REAL SA! I had disagreed with you respectfully, get back to me when you are willing to do the same.

 

I've asked repeatedly for a citation of fact proving the necessity of taxation. To date there have been none. 

 

My view is that taxation is choice we have made to finance our society, a choice no one is happy with but which no one is willing to change.  



#43 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,811 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:07 PM

 

 

 

Right, taxes are good for you.

 
Point missed.  Next!

 

The one who misses the point is you. Who actually pays corporate taxes?

 

There is this view that corporations are not actually owned by shareholders.  Who share the expenses and taxes of the corporation.

 

How do you, as a shareholder, share the expenses?  I've never been asked to send in a check to any company I've owned stock in.

Note: Check selling price of said stock dipwad....



#44 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:09 PM

For those without the background, Mr. Pete is of the opinion that the we should fund our government solely by printing money instead of by taxation, which will not have any negative consequences.

 

There is really no point arguing with him on this, and it's better to just agree to disagree.



#45 plchacker

plchacker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,771 posts
  • Location:Helwestern AL

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:10 PM

Until the tax code is completely re-written it will only get worse, you know, like Obamacare.  Our tax code reminds me of the people that never really change the oil in their car. They simply add a quart every time they think it is getting low.  Eventually the engine blows up; then they  whine about their bad luck.



#46 plchacker

plchacker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,771 posts
  • Location:Helwestern AL

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:16 PM

 

Indeed you have the right to pay taxes onto death. That we can ALL agree on.... :lol:

If there is anything left over, after death as well.

Death tax is 50% of everything my friend....

:D

 

I gotta get back to work.  I have some of those multinational types who fund scholarships for my students visiting today.  Funny how they show no sense of public duty.  I mean after all, they create money out of thin air and hoard it all to their selves. 



#47 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:18 PM

 

 

 

I'm still waiting for someone to cite the economic necessity of taxation. Taxation- a choice.

 

What is the economic necessity of any shared communal resource?  Why do we need police & fire departments and roads?  Why not not privatize everything right down to the military?

 

TANSTAAFL

With all due respect, that response is the best display of cognitive dissonance I've ever read.

 

If banks can invent money out of thin air for business purposes, there is no reason the public, through government, cannot apply the same principle for social needs.

 

So are you suggesting we can ask the highway fairy to build us roads?

And here we are, back to the REAL SA! I had disagreed with you respectfully, get back to me when you are willing to do the same.

 

I've asked repeatedly for a citation of fact proving the necessity of taxation. To date there have been none. 

 

My view is that taxation is choice we have made to finance our society, a choice no one is happy with but which no one is willing to change.  

 

You are correct to the extent that it is a choice, as we have opted to live in communities and pool our resources for group betterment.

 

We could privatize everything, that's another choice.

 

Beyond privatizing everything, how would you suggest we social human animals pool our resources?  You have taxes...and what else?  Take up a collection for roads and to run fire departments?  It's obvious from listening to the right wing people here that there are MANY who are happy to use government services but don't want to pay for them, so how is it going to work?

 

When it comes down to it your choices are 1) live in a community and follow it's rules (pay taxes), 2) move to a community who's tax rules you like better, or 3) revoke all citizenship and move to someplace where you can be completely self sufficient and rely on no one for anything.  #3 as we know isn't tenable, every scrap of terra firma is accounted for in the world, but you can move to a no income tax state and go hide in the hills I suppose.

 

Like it or not "taxation" works for the human social animal.  It is supposed to ensure that everyone helps pay for the benefits they receive.

 

-------------------------

 

Your whole "can print more money" argument is demonstrably false, it undermines any other arguments you make on it.

 

Money IS an abstraction, an invention.  It does indeed work because we've agreed on it's representative value for some goods or services.  It is inconvenient if you are a cattle farmer to bring a cow to trade for vegetables, it's not like you can whack a steak off a live cow to trade for some potatoes.   Cows are an incredibly clumsy medium of exchange, as is any form of barter in a complex society.  So we have this abstraction to represent agreed upon value to facilitate trade, division of labor, and a complex society.

 

That does not mean you can just "invent" more.  Printing more money without some sort of agreed value undermines the agreed upon abstraction of value in the first place.  If you do too much of it the system WILL collapse.  No one has ever gotten their country out of financial trouble by printing more money.  You end up with people carrying trash bags full of cash to buy a loaf of bread, and eventually a devalued currency.



#48 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:21 PM

 

 

The one who misses the point is you. Who actually pays corporate taxes?

 

There is this view that corporations are not actually owned by shareholders.  Who share the expenses and taxes of the corporation.

 

How do you, as a shareholder, share the expenses?  I've never been asked to send in a check to any company I've owned stock in.

Note: Check selling price of said stock dipwad....

 

What does THAT have to do with paying the expenses of the company?

 

Before you call me names, perhaps you ought to check your understanding of how the stock market works.  The stock price has ZERO impact on the bottom line of the company, none.  The profitability of the company can (and does) affect the stock price, but it is in no way tied to or controlled by it.  I've owned stocks in companies that are making lots of money that have been driven down in price by stampeding sheep fleeing the market on the whole.

 

Also, if I buy a stock today and hold it for 20 years...how many expenses have I paid??

 

The impact on expenses is on the dividends (if any) paid, but it no way is removed from (or paid by) the shareholders.

 

Try again.



#49 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,811 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:24 PM

 

 

 

The one who misses the point is you. Who actually pays corporate taxes?

 

There is this view that corporations are not actually owned by shareholders.  Who share the expenses and taxes of the corporation.

 

How do you, as a shareholder, share the expenses?  I've never been asked to send in a check to any company I've owned stock in.

Note: Check selling price of said stock dipwad....

 

What does THAT have to do with paying the expenses of the company?

 

Before you call me names, perhaps you ought to check your understanding of how the stock market works.  The stock price has ZERO impact on the bottom line of the company, none.  The profitability of the company can (and does) affect the stock price, but it is in no way tied to or controlled by it.  I've owned stocks in companies that are making lots of money that have been driven down in price by stampeding sheep fleeing the market on the whole.

 

Also, if I buy a stock today and hold it for 20 years...how many expenses have I paid??

 

The impact on expenses is on the dividends (if any) paid, but it no way is removed from (or paid by) the shareholders.

 

Try again.

Because price is supposedly based on profitability dipwad....  

 



#50 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:37 PM

 

Note: Check selling price of said stock dipwad....

 

What does THAT have to do with paying the expenses of the company?

 

Before you call me names, perhaps you ought to check your understanding of how the stock market works.  The stock price has ZERO impact on the bottom line of the company, none.  The profitability of the company can (and does) affect the stock price, but it is in no way tied to or controlled by it.  I've owned stocks in companies that are making lots of money that have been driven down in price by stampeding sheep fleeing the market on the whole.

 

Also, if I buy a stock today and hold it for 20 years...how many expenses have I paid??

 

The impact on expenses is on the dividends (if any) paid, but it no way is removed from (or paid by) the shareholders.

 

Try again.

Because price is supposedly based on profitability dipwad....  

 

Do you REALLY want to start an insult fight, when you have repeatedly demonstrated your ignorance of how the stock market actually works?

 

PRICE is based on demand for the stock.  Not profitability.  It's all about how many people want to own the stock at any given moment.  Supply and demand, Econ 101.

 

Now the DEMAND for a stock can be affected by a lot of things, including (in no particular order):

- Supply of the stock (number of shares issued...every seen what a stock split does to your share price?)

- Financial health of the company.  This includes profitability, fiscal health (e.g. debt ratios), comfort with management and long term plans, market conditions for the companies product, etc. etc.

- Investor sentiment.  This seems disproportionate sometimes, especially when institutions start stampeding like million pound elephants.

- Information available about the stock.  Rumors of takeovers, new products, executive departures, etc. etc. etc.

- Dividend yield; tied to profits but not every company that shows a profit pays dividends.

 

High DEMAND + restricted supply = increase in price.

 

There are a number of factors that go into the current trading price of a stock.  But the #1 factor is how much people are willing to pay for it.  Profitability is only one component that goes into stock price.

 

Stocks are commodities sold on a market, there is nothing which in any way directly links profitability to share price (meaning company ABC announces good earnings, stock price goes up by $X per share automatically).  Heck, I've had stocks I've own drop in the days after a positive earnings surprise.  If what you believe is true that could never happen.

 

And again - it was suggested that shareholders share the expenses.  The implication there is that shareholders are somehow paying the expense of the company.  This is patently false.  You buy a stock, you own it.  You are never required to put money into the company, your only risk is that the stock price (for whatever reason) will go down.  And stock prices in profitable, well run companies go down for no reason all the time - which is an excellent time to buy BTW.

 

If I buy a stock today for $100 per share, hold it for five years, then sell it for $125 per share how many "Expenses" have I shared?



#51 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,811 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:41 PM

Demand for stock is based on profitability you moron. 



#52 tikipete

tikipete

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,394 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:46 PM

If my argument is demonstrably false, demonstrate the falsity. 

 

What is see, in the real world, is a seemingly endless stream of cash available to bankers in the form of fractionalized lending followed by even more from Quantative Easing. 

 

The necessity of taxation is demonstrably false as evidenced by the Continental dollar, the Greenback, fractionalized lending and QE.  Taxation is a choice. Our particular tax system is obsolete at best.



#53 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:48 PM

Demand for stock is based on profitability you moron. 

 

OK, you are clearly an ignoramus.  And a rude one at that.

 

Go read a book on investment and get back to me then, otherwise you are wasting time.



#54 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:52 PM

Demand for stock is based on profitability you moron. 

 

This uses a lot or words in excess of two syllables, but it might help you...

 

http://www.investope...cks/stocks4.asp

 

The important things to grasp about this subject are the following:

1. At the most fundamental level, supply and demand in the market determines stock price.
2. Price times the number of shares outstanding (market capitalization) is the value of a company. Comparing just the share price of two companies is meaningless.
3. Theoretically, earnings are what affect investors' valuation of a company, but there are other indicators that investors use to predict stock price. Remember, it is investors' sentiments, attitudes and expectations that ultimately affect stock prices.
4. There are many theories that try to explain the way stock prices move the way they do. Unfortunately, there is no one theory that can explain everything.



#55 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,240 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:54 PM

Mr. Porter,

 

never wrestle with a pig.  you know what happens.   The reason the tax code is so complex and why it won't be simplified is because of who benefits from it. 

 

As to stock prices perhaps our resident pig can explain facebook.  Or all those tech companies in the 90s. 



#56 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 03:13 PM

Mr. Porter,

 

never wrestle with a pig.  you know what happens.   The reason the tax code is so complex and why it won't be simplified is because of who benefits from it. 

 

As to stock prices perhaps our resident pig can explain facebook.  Or all those tech companies in the 90s. 

 

Whoa!  If tu tuk is correct, then...*gasp*...stocks of companies that have never shown a profit...must be free!  Is Facebook stock still free?  I'd pay Free for Facebook stock, sign me up!


Time to put the PA Logic Squad up to finding me some more Free Stocks!
 

Monty-Python-and-the-Holy-Grail-19751.jp



#57 tikipete

tikipete

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,394 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 03:21 PM

Demand for stock is based on profitability you moron. 

 

This uses a lot or words in excess of two syllables, but it might help you...

 

http://www.investope...cks/stocks4.asp

 

>The important things to grasp about this subject are the following:

1. At the most fundamental level, supply and demand in the market determines stock price.
2. Price times the number of shares outstanding (market capitalization) is the value of a company. Comparing just the share price of two companies is meaningless.
3. Theoretically, earnings are what affect investors' valuation of a company, but there are other indicators that investors use to predict stock price. Remember, it is investors' sentiments, attitudes and expectations that ultimately affect stock prices.
4. There are many theories that try to explain the way stock prices move the way they do. Unfortunately, there is no one theory that can explain everything.

 

I'm not so sure 2 is an accurate statement. 

 

ex. If company A buys back x shares of its own stock, by your definition its value goes down.



#58 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,881 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 19 June 2013 - 03:25 PM

Hey BJ, ever use ANY available loophole come tax time? If so, then you really have nothing further to say about this topic that has any cred......

 

We are not nearly wealthy enough to actually use any meaningful loopholes.  We take the same deductions as the rest of the 99.9% that we are a part of.

 

The problem is not them paying no taxes if they are doing it legally, the problem is perverting the tax laws to make ways for it to be legal for GE and other corporations to pay no taxes in the first place while making $Billions in profit in the U.S.

 

Those tax laws are not perverted for the like of you and I.

 

BJ where is your boat registered??

 

John Kerry Saves $500,000 By Docking 76-Foot Luxury Yacht Out Of State

First Posted: 07/23/10 11:09 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 06:10 PM ET

 
 
React
follow-arrow.png
 
 
 
s-JOHN-KERRY-large.jpg
 

BOSTON (AP) -- Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry is docking his family's new $7 million yacht in neighboring Rhode Island, allowing him to avoid paying roughly $500,000 in taxes to the cash-strapped Bay State.

If the "Isabel" were kept at the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee's summer vacation home on Nantucket, or in Boston Harbor near his city residence, he would be liable for $437,500 in one-time sales tax. He would also have to pay $70,000 in annual excise taxes.

Rhode Island repealed those taxes in 1993. That has made the state something of a nautical tax haven.

Kerry spokesman David Wade said Friday the boat is being kept at Newport Shipyard not to evade taxes, but "for long-term maintenance, upkeep and charter purposes."

Wade noted the vessel was designed by Rhode Island boat designer Ted Fontaine and purchased in the state. It was built in New Zealand by Friendship Yachts.

A Department of Revenue spokesman said Kerry would be liable for Massachusetts taxes if he berthed the boat in the Bay State within six months of its purchase. If the "Isabel" were brought to Massachusetts after that period, the state would have to decide if it wanted to pursue the taxes.

Massachusetts, like most other states, has been grappling with plunging tax revenues. Last year's budget decifict was $600 million, and officials are bracing for a $1 billion deficit this year.

The 76-foot sloop has two cabins, a pilot house fitted with a wet bar and cold wine storage, according to the Boston Herald, which first reported its Rhode Island berthing. It derives its moniker from the middle name of Kerry's mother and the name his wife, Teresa Heinz, planned to give a daughter.

Instead, she had three sons.

Coast Guard registration records show the vessel is owned by Great Point LLC, a limited liability corporation based in Pittsburgh, Heinz's longtime home. The millionaire heiress to the Heinz ketchup fortune is a philanthropist and environmentalist.

 
 
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!



#59 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 03:32 PM

 

Hey BJ, ever use ANY available loophole come tax time? If so, then you really have nothing further to say about this topic that has any cred......

 

We are not nearly wealthy enough to actually use any meaningful loopholes.  We take the same deductions as the rest of the 99.9% that we are a part of.

 

The problem is not them paying no taxes if they are doing it legally, the problem is perverting the tax laws to make ways for it to be legal for GE and other corporations to pay no taxes in the first place while making $Billions in profit in the U.S.

 

Those tax laws are not perverted for the like of you and I.

 

BJ where is your boat registered??

 

John Kerry Saves $500,000 By Docking 76-Foot Luxury Yacht Out Of State

First Posted: 07/23/10 11:09 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 06:10 PM ET

 
 
React
follow-arrow.png
 
 
 
s-JOHN-KERRY-large.jpg
 

BOSTON (AP) -- Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry is docking his family's new $7 million yacht in neighboring Rhode Island, allowing him to avoid paying roughly $500,000 in taxes to the cash-strapped Bay State.

If the "Isabel" were kept at the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee's summer vacation home on Nantucket, or in Boston Harbor near his city residence, he would be liable for $437,500 in one-time sales tax. He would also have to pay $70,000 in annual excise taxes.

Rhode Island repealed those taxes in 1993. That has made the state something of a nautical tax haven.

Kerry spokesman David Wade said Friday the boat is being kept at Newport Shipyard not to evade taxes, but "for long-term maintenance, upkeep and charter purposes."

Wade noted the vessel was designed by Rhode Island boat designer Ted Fontaine and purchased in the state. It was built in New Zealand by Friendship Yachts.

A Department of Revenue spokesman said Kerry would be liable for Massachusetts taxes if he berthed the boat in the Bay State within six months of its purchase. If the "Isabel" were brought to Massachusetts after that period, the state would have to decide if it wanted to pursue the taxes.

Massachusetts, like most other states, has been grappling with plunging tax revenues. Last year's budget decifict was $600 million, and officials are bracing for a $1 billion deficit this year.

The 76-foot sloop has two cabins, a pilot house fitted with a wet bar and cold wine storage, according to the Boston Herald, which first reported its Rhode Island berthing. It derives its moniker from the middle name of Kerry's mother and the name his wife, Teresa Heinz, planned to give a daughter.

Instead, she had three sons.

Coast Guard registration records show the vessel is owned by Great Point LLC, a limited liability corporation based in Pittsburgh, Heinz's longtime home. The millionaire heiress to the Heinz ketchup fortune is a philanthropist and environmentalist.

 
 
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!

Doesn't matter if it's RI or FL, no property tax on it either place. 

 

Of course the Kerry issue is about SALES tax. When I bought my boat in 2006 I lived in RI which of course has none on boats.  Bought it in Florida, kept it two miles from my house as the crow flies after we sailed it back in April 2006.  All forms for out of state ownership filed with FL at the time.

 

Florida has sales tax, but I didn't live there in 2006 and you pay sales tax where the boat lands (hence Kerry's flap, he doesn't live in RI he parked the boat there to duck taxes).  Its only due if you bring the boat to FL within the first couple of years of ownership and you haven't taxed elsewhere.  I've met all the legal requirements for not paying sales tax (on the boat I've owned for 7+ years) in Florida.

 

Why do you ask?  Are you suggesting that I am somehow illegally dodging taxes?



#60 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,881 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 19 June 2013 - 03:39 PM

I've met all the legal requirements for not paying sales tax (on the boat I've owned for 7+ years).....

 

Why do you ask?  Are you suggesting that I am somehow illegally dodging taxes?

 

Are you suggesting corporations are not meeting their legal requirements?



#61 No.6

No.6

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,064 posts
  • Location:Portmeirion
  • Interests:Danger

Posted 19 June 2013 - 03:51 PM



Right, taxes are good for you.

 
Point missed.  Next!


The one who misses the point is you. Who actually pays corporate taxes?


I guess you are avoiding the above... or did your wifi drop out as you motor sailed from one marina to another?

#62 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 03:53 PM

I've met all the legal requirements for not paying sales tax (on the boat I've owned for 7+ years).....

 

Why do you ask?  Are you suggesting that I am somehow illegally dodging taxes?

 

Are you suggesting corporations are not meeting their legal requirements?

 

No, I've never suggested that.  I've suggested there is something wrong with the LAW that allows them to pay no taxes on billions in profit.



#63 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 04:07 PM

 

 

Right, taxes are good for you.

 
Point missed.  Next!

 

The one who misses the point is you. Who actually pays corporate taxes?

 

I guess you are avoiding the above... or did your wifi drop out as you motor sailed from one marina to another?

 

You going to start with the nastiness AGAIN are you?  Saying more things about me that just aren't true?  Next you know some weak minded fool will be quoting them as gospel truth "because they remember a post about it in the forums" about me the next time I piss them off, I've seen it happen.  Some stooge will in his head turn it into "recalling" that I "admitted" that I motorsailed from marina to marina.

 

Currently in Tyrrel Bay, Carriacou - do me a favor and find the "marina" here.  There's Wifi and a place to haul out, but no marina.

 

I haven't stayed in a marina since we had some work done in St. Lucia...total nights in marinas when NOT getting work done since last July = 3, because my 70+ year old parents were on board in St. Martin and we didn't want them trying to get on and off the boat in huge swells we ducked into a marina for a few of nights.  We've put 263 hours of engine time on in almost 4,000 miles of traveling, most of that is idling while setting or dropping hook - that's some 30-60 minutes of engine time every time you move.  A few days motor sailing on the way down here, that was largely unavoidable.  Once or twice motoring out of the lee of an island to keep up speed to get in before dark, but most days are like Monday where we sailed from Union Island to Petite Martinique (didn't stop), then over to Hillsborough under sail to clear in.  Then sails out again to sail around to Tyrrel Bay.

 

That's once of the nice things about cruising, you can wait for good sailing weather to move.  Very few times you HAVE to get the boat moving unless you are on a passage to avoid weather when the wind pukes, or the wind dies once you are already en route and you don't want to pull into a new harbor in the dark.

 

Technology has changed since you took your pay-to-play rally around the world; when I was anchored on Union Island I could pick up a Wifi signal from Mayreau, four miles away.  More places than not have Wifi in the Caribbean.

 

But you go ahead and keep on about how you never start anything or make anything up.

 

----

 

Your point (of limited merit) was addressed in other replies, I didn't see a need to speak to you directly as I suspected you'd just start with the nastiness again.  I was right.



#64 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,881 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 19 June 2013 - 04:10 PM

glad your mom and dad got a chance to stay on the boat.



#65 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 04:12 PM

glad your mom and dad got a chance to stay on the boat.

 

It was fun having them in St. Martin, they came with us a fair amount when we were cruising New England.  Not boat people though, debarking to the dinghy can be...awkward.  They are making noises about coming to see us in Grenada this summer too which would be nice, we'll try and bring them up tot he Tobago Cays weather permitting.



#66 No.6

No.6

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,064 posts
  • Location:Portmeirion
  • Interests:Danger

Posted 19 June 2013 - 04:19 PM





Right, taxes are good for you.

 
Point missed.  Next!


The one who misses the point is you. Who actually pays corporate taxes?


I guess you are avoiding the above... or did your wifi drop out as you motor sailed from one marina to another?


 
You going to start with the nastiness AGAIN are you?  Saying more things about me that just aren't true?  Next you know some weak minded fool will be quoting them as gospel truth "because they remember a post about it in the forums" about me the next time I piss them off, I've seen it happen.  Some stooge will in his head turn it into "recalling" that I "admitted" that I motorsailed from marina to marina.
 
Currently in Tyrrel Bay, Carriacou - do me a favor and find the "marina" here.  There's Wifi and a place to haul out, but no marina.
 
I haven't stayed in a marina since we had some work done in St. Lucia...total nights in marinas when NOT getting work done since last July = 3, because my 70+ year old parents were on board in St. Martin and we didn't want them trying to get on and off the boat in huge swells we ducked into a marina for a few of nights.  We've put 263 hours of engine time on in almost 4,000 miles of traveling, most of that is idling while setting or dropping hook - that's some 30-60 minutes of engine time every time you move.  A few days motor sailing on the way down here, that was largely unavoidable.  Once or twice motoring out of the lee of an island to keep up speed to get in before dark, but most days are like Monday where we sailed from Union Island to Petite Martinique (didn't stop), then over to Hillsborough under sail to clear in.  Then sails out again to sail around to Tyrrel Bay.
 
That's once of the nice things about cruising, you can wait for good sailing weather to move.  Very few times you HAVE to get the boat moving unless you are on a passage to avoid weather when the wind pukes, or the wind dies once you are already en route and you don't want to pull into a new harbor in the dark.
 
Technology has changed since you took your pay-to-play rally around the world; when I was anchored on Union Island I could pick up a Wifi signal from Mayreau, four miles away.  More places than not have Wifi in the Caribbean.
 
But you go ahead and keep on about how you never start anything or make anything up.
 
----
 
Your point (of limited merit) was addressed in other replies, I didn't see a need to speak to you directly as I suspected you'd just start with the nastiness again.  I was right.


The point of going sailing is to disconnect, not plan your itinerary on where the best free Wifi is.... unless your initials are DT.
Pay-to-play? Hardly. An entrance fee for each boat, like any competitive event, to cover the organizers, officials and race committee, but pay-to-play? Get real and stop talking out your ass.
So back to the point, who pays corporate taxes? Where does that money come from? Seriously, you are trying to make it sound as if companies print their money.

#67 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,811 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 04:33 PM

glad your mom and dad got a chance to stay on the boat.

why did he ever get off> 



#68 WarBird

WarBird

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:lake michigan

Posted 19 June 2013 - 04:35 PM


I've met all the legal requirements for not paying sales tax (on the boat I've owned for 7+ years).....
 
Why do you ask?  Are you suggesting that I am somehow illegally dodging taxes?

 
Are you suggesting corporations are not meeting their legal requirements?
 
No, I've never suggested that.  I've suggested there is something wrong with the LAW that allows them to pay no taxes on billions in profit.
Instead of saying billions in profit why don't you adopt "Less than 6.6% in profit"?

#69 WarBird

WarBird

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:lake michigan

Posted 19 June 2013 - 04:37 PM

Fishing? Yes

#70 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,260 posts
  • Location:Marina Del Rey, Ca.

Posted 19 June 2013 - 04:39 PM

 

I've met all the legal requirements for not paying sales tax (on the boat I've owned for 7+ years).....

 

Why do you ask?  Are you suggesting that I am somehow illegally dodging taxes?

 

Are you suggesting corporations are not meeting their legal requirements?

 

No, I've never suggested that.  I've suggested there is something wrong with the LAW that allows them to pay no taxes on billions in profit.

 

I've heard the argument and it's becoming somewhat persuasive to me that corporations should pay zero taxes. Corporations should be allowed free rein as it creates an atmosphere of development and ingenuity one with adequate capital for expansion and cultivation. All corporate costs are passed on to the consumer including their tax burden anyway,  If taxes are to be paid, they should be the burden of the investor who merely profits from transactions.



#71 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 04:40 PM

The point of going sailing is to disconnect, not plan your itinerary on where the best free Wifi is.... unless your initials are DT.
Pay-to-play? Hardly. An entrance fee for each boat, like any competitive event, to cover the organizers, officials and race committee, but pay-to-play? Get real and stop talking out your ass.
So back to the point, who pays corporate taxes? Where does that money come from? Seriously, you are trying to make it sound as if companies print their money.

 

Trust me, we don't plan our itinerary around the internet.  It's nice to stay in touch with home, and with the kids schooling we use it but it's not planned.  Wifi is almost ubiquitous though some places are surprisingly tough to get connected.  St. Martin is pretty much impossible to get connected on the boat which is unexpected.  Yet I survived six whole weeks in that Wifi-less hell.  Tobago Cays wasn't shocking, there's nothing there.

 

YOUR point might be to "disconnect" (what the hell does that mean, anyway?  Cut yourself off from everyone?  I like my family and friends and am not trying to get away from them.), but I'm not you.  Judgmental clowns like you can certainly cast aspersions because I'm not living my life the way you think I should.  Good thing it's my life, not yours - the number of fucks I give about your opinion and $3.00 will buy you a cup of coffee.  If I'm sitting on the boat waiting for weather to pass through what sort of exercises would you suggest I do to maintain spiritual purity according to your standards?

 

"Pay to Play" is just based on your description of the event, not anything I've made up.   Wasn't it kind of like a World ARC sort of thing?  You pay money to an organizer and rally cruise in company, no?  Doesn't sound interesting to me.

 

------------------------------

 

Corporations that can't exploit all the loopholes pay corporate taxes, on profits after expenses.  What is your point?



#72 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 04:42 PM

 

 


I've met all the legal requirements for not paying sales tax (on the boat I've owned for 7+ years).....
 
Why do you ask?  Are you suggesting that I am somehow illegally dodging taxes?

 
Are you suggesting corporations are not meeting their legal requirements?
 
No, I've never suggested that.  I've suggested there is something wrong with the LAW that allows them to pay no taxes on billions in profit.
Instead of saying billions in profit why don't you adopt "Less than 6.6% in profit"?

 

Because the amounts at stake are in the Billions.

 

Huge companies can get out of paying taxes, small companies can't.  Same model that we have on individual taxes...I have a problem with that.



#73 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,919 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 05:00 PM

 

 

 

Right, taxes are good for you.

 
Point missed.  Next!

 

The one who misses the point is you. Who actually pays corporate taxes?

 

There is this view that corporations are not actually owned by shareholders.  Who share the expenses and taxes of the corporation.

 

How do you, as a shareholder, share the expenses?  I've never been asked to send in a check to any company I've owned stock in.

 

I guess you don't understand operating capital derived from sales.



#74 R Booth

R Booth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,841 posts
  • Location:Just out of eyesight....
  • Interests:Postponing my funeral 'til tomorrow....

Posted 19 June 2013 - 05:04 PM

 

 

 


I've met all the legal requirements for not paying sales tax (on the boat I've owned for 7+ years).....
 
Why do you ask?  Are you suggesting that I am somehow illegally dodging taxes?

 
Are you suggesting corporations are not meeting their legal requirements?
 
No, I've never suggested that.  I've suggested there is something wrong with the LAW that allows them to pay no taxes on billions in profit.
Instead of saying billions in profit why don't you adopt "Less than 6.6% in profit"?

 

Because the amounts at stake are in the Billions.

 

Huge companies can get out of paying taxes, small companies can't.  Same model that we have on individual taxes...I have a problem with that.

 

 

At stake? Care to explain that one? 'Cuz the only thing I see as being 'at stake' is the inability for the Leftistas to piss away money that is not theirs, on shit for people who didn't earn it.

 

Maybe you should stay in some of those Frenchie islands.....:lol:



#75 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,811 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 05:12 PM

 

 

 


I've met all the legal requirements for not paying sales tax (on the boat I've owned for 7+ years).....
 
Why do you ask?  Are you suggesting that I am somehow illegally dodging taxes?

 
Are you suggesting corporations are not meeting their legal requirements?
 
No, I've never suggested that.  I've suggested there is something wrong with the LAW that allows them to pay no taxes on billions in profit.
Instead of saying billions in profit why don't you adopt "Less than 6.6% in profit"?

 

Because the amounts at stake are in the Billions.

 

Huge companies can get out of paying taxes, small companies can't.  Same model that we have on individual taxes...I have a problem with that.

DUH... try simply a flat tax... and an end to your "dipshitedness",,, (a new word first coined by "tuk tuk joe').... 



#76 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,240 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 05:16 PM

Flat tax has two chances - fat and slim.  Who writes the tax code?  Who benefits?  Who invests supports the tax code writers?  Why is it so complicated and convoluted that few can decipher it? 

 

Meanwhile, blame it on the leftistas.  It's funny in a sad clown car kind of way.



#77 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 05:26 PM

Flat tax has two chances - fat and slim.  Who writes the tax code?  Who benefits?  Who invests supports the tax code writers?  Why is it so complicated and convoluted that few can decipher it? 

 

Meanwhile, blame it on the leftistas.  It's funny in a sad clown car kind of way.

 

And the flat tax crowd still fails to recognize it's fundamental flaw - the relative value of a dollar depending on how many you have.



#78 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,260 posts
  • Location:Marina Del Rey, Ca.

Posted 19 June 2013 - 05:26 PM

'Cuz the only thing I see as being 'at stake' is the inability for the Leftistas to piss away money that is not theirs, on shit for people who didn't earn it.

 

I didn't piss away the trillions you guys spent on wars and never paid for, fattening the wallets of 14,000 contractors who have their hands out everyday for their gubmint money.



#79 R Booth

R Booth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,841 posts
  • Location:Just out of eyesight....
  • Interests:Postponing my funeral 'til tomorrow....

Posted 19 June 2013 - 05:29 PM

'Cuz the only thing I see as being 'at stake' is the inability for the Leftistas to piss away money that is not theirs, on shit for people who didn't earn it.

 

I didn't piss away the trillions you guys spent on wars and never paid for, fattening the wallets of 14,000 contractors who have their hands out everyday for their gubmint money.

 

 

You obviously do not remember, when years ago here, I stated that I was against the Iraqi 'War' from day one?......



#80 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,881 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 19 June 2013 - 05:31 PM

braincells wiped clean from electro-shock therapy.



#81 WarBird

WarBird

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:lake michigan

Posted 19 June 2013 - 08:36 PM


 


 



I've met all the legal requirements for not paying sales tax (on the boat I've owned for 7+ years).....
 
Why do you ask?  Are you suggesting that I am somehow illegally dodging taxes?

 
Are you suggesting corporations are not meeting their legal requirements?
 
No, I've never suggested that.  I've suggested there is something wrong with the LAW that allows them to pay no taxes on billions in profit.
Instead of saying billions in profit why don't you adopt "Less than 6.6% in profit"?
 
Because the amounts at stake are in the Billions.
 
Huge companies can get out of paying taxes, small companies can't.  Same model that we have on individual taxes...I have a problem with that.
Im not an mba but I imagine if GE posted 6.9% profit,the last 0.5% would have been taxed at 100% and the ntt profit would only be 6.4. That would leave pissed share holders and 700million less to spend on taxable improvements upgrades goods and services.

#82 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,260 posts
  • Location:Marina Del Rey, Ca.

Posted 19 June 2013 - 09:03 PM

 

'Cuz the only thing I see as being 'at stake' is the inability for the Leftistas to piss away money that is not theirs, on shit for people who didn't earn it.

 

I didn't piss away the trillions you guys spent on wars and never paid for, fattening the wallets of 14,000 contractors who have their hands out everyday for their gubmint money.

 

 

You obviously do not remember, when years ago here, I stated that I was against the Iraqi 'War' from day one?......

 

Why would I have to remember that? We were discussing pissing away money that is not theirs on shit for people who didn't earn it.



#83 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 10:39 PM

Im not an mba but I imagine if GE posted 6.9% profit,the last 0.5% would have been taxed at 100% and the ntt profit would only be 6.4. That would leave pissed share holders and 700million less to spend on taxable improvements upgrades goods and services.

 

No, you apparently are not.

 

My wife's medical practice ran at a "profit" of about 1.5% last year.  We STILL got stuck with a $7,000 tax liability,  more than GE's.  There is nothing we could have done to make that go away - just not enough money there to avoid the taxes legally.  And that's just electronic money really, income on a K-1 that we were taxed on that will never end up in our pockets.

 

My heart does not bleed for GE or their share holders.



#84 No.6

No.6

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,064 posts
  • Location:Portmeirion
  • Interests:Danger

Posted 19 June 2013 - 10:54 PM


The point of going sailing is to disconnect, not plan your itinerary on where the best free Wifi is.... unless your initials are DT.
Pay-to-play? Hardly. An entrance fee for each boat, like any competitive event, to cover the organizers, officials and race committee, but pay-to-play? Get real and stop talking out your ass.
So back to the point, who pays corporate taxes? Where does that money come from? Seriously, you are trying to make it sound as if companies print their money.

 
Trust me, we don't plan our itinerary around the internet.  It's nice to stay in touch with home, and with the kids schooling we use it but it's not planned.  Wifi is almost ubiquitous though some places are surprisingly tough to get connected.  St. Martin is pretty much impossible to get connected on the boat which is unexpected.  Yet I survived six whole weeks in that Wifi-less hell.  Tobago Cays wasn't shocking, there's nothing there.
 
YOUR point might be to "disconnect" (what the hell does that mean, anyway?  Cut yourself off from everyone?  I like my family and friends and am not trying to get away from them.), but I'm not you.  Judgmental clowns like you can certainly cast aspersions because I'm not living my life the way you think I should.  Good thing it's my life, not yours - the number of fucks I give about your opinion and $3.00 will buy you a cup of coffee.  If I'm sitting on the boat waiting for weather to pass through what sort of exercises would you suggest I do to maintain spiritual purity according to your standards?
 
"Pay to Play" is just based on your description of the event, not anything I've made up.   Wasn't it kind of like a World ARC sort of thing?  You pay money to an organizer and rally cruise in company, no?  Doesn't sound interesting to me.
 
------------------------------
 
Corporations that can't exploit all the loopholes pay corporate taxes, on profits after expenses.  What is your point?


Gosh you are clueless to go along with not being much of a sailor. I firmly doubt you don't plan your itinerary around wifi. Man are you in for a shock if you ever get through the canal.
And no, I never described anything as being "pay-to-play" Just more of your crap. Like the PM you sent me the other day to try and provoke a response.

#85 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 11:13 PM

 

The point of going sailing is to disconnect, not plan your itinerary on where the best free Wifi is.... unless your initials are DT.
Pay-to-play? Hardly. An entrance fee for each boat, like any competitive event, to cover the organizers, officials and race committee, but pay-to-play? Get real and stop talking out your ass.
So back to the point, who pays corporate taxes? Where does that money come from? Seriously, you are trying to make it sound as if companies print their money.

 
Trust me, we don't plan our itinerary around the internet.  It's nice to stay in touch with home, and with the kids schooling we use it but it's not planned.  Wifi is almost ubiquitous though some places are surprisingly tough to get connected.  St. Martin is pretty much impossible to get connected on the boat which is unexpected.  Yet I survived six whole weeks in that Wifi-less hell.  Tobago Cays wasn't shocking, there's nothing there.
 
YOUR point might be to "disconnect" (what the hell does that mean, anyway?  Cut yourself off from everyone?  I like my family and friends and am not trying to get away from them.), but I'm not you.  Judgmental clowns like you can certainly cast aspersions because I'm not living my life the way you think I should.  Good thing it's my life, not yours - the number of fucks I give about your opinion and $3.00 will buy you a cup of coffee.  If I'm sitting on the boat waiting for weather to pass through what sort of exercises would you suggest I do to maintain spiritual purity according to your standards?
 
"Pay to Play" is just based on your description of the event, not anything I've made up.   Wasn't it kind of like a World ARC sort of thing?  You pay money to an organizer and rally cruise in company, no?  Doesn't sound interesting to me.
 
------------------------------
 
Corporations that can't exploit all the loopholes pay corporate taxes, on profits after expenses.  What is your point?

 

Gosh you are clueless to go along with not being much of a sailor. I firmly doubt you don't plan your itinerary around wifi. Man are you in for a shock if you ever get through the canal.
And no, I never described anything as being "pay-to-play" Just more of your crap. Like the PM you sent me the other day to try and provoke a response.

 

And here I thought it was an olive branch, sent in a friendly teasing manner.  My bad, you are clearly too far gone for retrieval.  Oh well, I won't do it again.

 

I only went off of your description of the event - which was even in this thread as you described it, something the owner of the boat paid to be in, no?

 

Tell me, when was the last time you ventured anywhere under sail outside of LIS that wasn't part of a race?  You've never BEEN a cruiser from what I can tell, you've been a racer and you lived on your boat.  You haven't the first idea about the cruising lifestyle or what has changed in the world in the last what - 20? 30? years since you went around the globe with your whatever-it-was event that wasn't a 'pay-to-play' even though someone paid for the boat to be in it.

 

Cruising and racing are two different things.  So are cruising and living aboard your boat that never leaves the marina.  I've never claimed to be much of a sailor, but I did get my boat here in one piece with no one but my family for crew.  And I will continue to take my boat to new and exciting places while you chew your spleen on land up in NY.  My boat, me as skipper, getting from place to place and experiencing it - deal with it.  Your insults do not matter, I am out here, not sitting in some marina like DT (or you, for that matter). I really don't care at all what you think, I just don't enjoy it much when you libel me which is why I respond to you at all.  Fortunately most people here seem to realize how far around the bend you've gone but that doesn't mean I enjoy your cowardly lies being attached to my name on the internet.

 

I'm not sure what I've done to deserve so much of your hatred (though you've said some stuff by way of explanation, since none of it is actually true I am still puzzled), but frankly I don't care the reason.  You aren't worth the time.

 

You are living proof that being a good sailor doesn't make one a decent person.  And therefore the opinions of your "serious sailor" friends that you claim "think I'm a joke" is also completely without merit, as anyone that calls you friend must be an ass by association.



#86 No.6

No.6

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,064 posts
  • Location:Portmeirion
  • Interests:Danger

Posted 20 June 2013 - 12:01 AM

Too funny. Olive branch... from you? Please. You are such a facking prick I actually had to ask you to stop e-mailing me a constant stream of crap or I would need to add you to my spam filter.
Live in whatever dreamworld you like BJ. I've already been around the block and know all too well what it is about. So far you have made it only as far as The Caribbean and think you know it all already. You are in for a rude awakening if you ever get to The Pacific, which I sort of doubt will happen, but in the event you do...
As for me being around the bend, you really are delusional. It would surprise you to know the number of PMs and e-mails I have gotten from different posters who think you are SA's biggest jackass who thinks he is all that. Some of it is most entertaining to read. Some of the sources are quite shocking, which makes them even more special.
Anyhow, fuck off and go play sheriff or something. I really can't believe you still are moderating the boards. Nothing better to do with your time than make yourself feel important on SA. The definition of pathetic.

#87 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 20 June 2013 - 01:44 AM

Too funny. Olive branch... from you? Please. You are such a facking prick I actually had to ask you to stop e-mailing me a constant stream of crap or I would need to add you to my spam filter.
Live in whatever dreamworld you like BJ. I've already been around the block and know all too well what it is about. So far you have made it only as far as The Caribbean and think you know it all already. You are in for a rude awakening if you ever get to The Pacific, which I sort of doubt will happen, but in the event you do...
As for me being around the bend, you really are delusional. It would surprise you to know the number of PMs and e-mails I have gotten from different posters who think you are SA's biggest jackass who thinks he is all that. Some of it is most entertaining to read. Some of the sources are quite shocking, which makes them even more special.
Anyhow, fuck off and go play sheriff or something. I really can't believe you still are moderating the boards. Nothing better to do with your time than make yourself feel important on SA. The definition of pathetic.

 

You a strange, sad little man.



#88 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,240 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 04:41 AM

Too funny. Olive branch... from you? Please. You are such a facking prick I actually had to ask you to stop e-mailing me a constant stream of crap or I would need to add you to my spam filter.
Live in whatever dreamworld you like BJ. I've already been around the block and know all too well what it is about. So far you have made it only as far as The Caribbean and think you know it all already. You are in for a rude awakening if you ever get to The Pacific, which I sort of doubt will happen, but in the event you do...
As for me being around the bend, you really are delusional. It would surprise you to know the number of PMs and e-mails I have gotten from different posters who think you are SA's biggest jackass who thinks he is all that. Some of it is most entertaining to read. Some of the sources are quite shocking, which makes them even more special.
Anyhow, fuck off and go play sheriff or something. I really can't believe you still are moderating the boards. Nothing better to do with your time than make yourself feel important on SA. The definition of pathetic.

 

You a strange, sad little man.

Having never met him I didn't realize he was little.  He writes big. 



#89 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,811 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 07:38 AM

Flat tax has two chances - fat and slim.  Who writes the tax code?  Who benefits?  Who invests supports the tax code writers?  Why is it so complicated and convoluted that few can decipher it? 
 
Meanwhile, blame it on the leftistas.  It's funny in a sad clown car kind of way.

 
And the flat tax crowd still fails to recognize it's fundamental flaw - the relative value of a dollar depending on how many you have.

The fundamental flaw is in your thinking only. 10% of $100 = $10 , 10% 1,000,000 = $100k. This is exactly "relative value depending on how many you have." Next.....

#90 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,923 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 20 June 2013 - 11:47 AM

 

Flat tax has two chances - fat and slim.  Who writes the tax code?  Who benefits?  Who invests supports the tax code writers?  Why is it so complicated and convoluted that few can decipher it? 
 
Meanwhile, blame it on the leftistas.  It's funny in a sad clown car kind of way.

 
And the flat tax crowd still fails to recognize it's fundamental flaw - the relative value of a dollar depending on how many you have.

The fundamental flaw is in your thinking only. 10% of $100 = $10 , 10% 1,000,000 = $100k. This is exactly "relative value depending on how many you have." Next.....

 

No, it is in your understanding.  Perhaps a bit in your common sense and compassion too, but that's not part of policy now, is it?

 

Imagine someone raising a family.  They've got an OK job - better than minimum, say $10/hour.  Or about $20K per year if they only work 40 hours per week; let's make it a working couple so they probably make more like $30K if one works part time or for less money (someone has to watch the kids).  Their federal tax liability now is around zero, true.  Because they are essentially living at or below poverty level.  For that $30K a year (take home a little less) they can barely pay the rent, put gas in the car and keep it running so they can get to work, and feed and clothe their two kids.  Health insurance is a pipe dream, savings a wet dream - they make basically enough to tread water without swallowing too much.  An event like a blown transmission or a lost job will put them under water.

 

Now let's take 10% of their income away.  They now have $3,000 less to live on.  What do you think happens to their financial picture?  Is this a minor event - an inconvenience? Or would it be a back breaking financial disaster that might end with them living under an overpass with the kids?

 

Now imagine a family making $500,000 per year.  Yes, they pay Fed taxes - over $100K per year.  Brutal tax burden, no?  At the end of the day their total fed & state tax bill is over $150K.  It still leaves them some $350K or so to live on, for which they can afford a nice home, private school for the kids, maybe a nanny and/or a boat, and the cars are never old shitbox clunkers.

 

Now take $3,000 from this family.  Does this change their life style at all?  Do they have to sell the boat, lose nanny, put the kids in public school?  Lose their house and move under an overpass?

 

Same $3,000 - two different families.  To one $3,000 is a HUGE amount of money, to the other $3,000 won't even cover the cost of the family vacation every summer.  Its loss is inconvenient, but not earth shattering.

 

So a dollar is worth a bit more or less to someone depending on how much they make.  No one making $10 per hour is going to be buying a $4.00 coffee on the way to work every day.

 

-----

 

Sorry even to be replying to this, checked my e-mail and saw spam reports to follow up on...got sucked into replying here.  Sailing today, so you won't hear back from me.



#91 tikipete

tikipete

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,394 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 12:47 PM

 

 

Flat tax has two chances - fat and slim.  Who writes the tax code?  Who benefits?  Who invests supports the tax code writers?  Why is it so complicated and convoluted that few can decipher it? 
 
Meanwhile, blame it on the leftistas.  It's funny in a sad clown car kind of way.

 
And the flat tax crowd still fails to recognize it's fundamental flaw - the relative value of a dollar depending on how many you have.

The fundamental flaw is in your thinking only. 10% of $100 = $10 , 10% 1,000,000 = $100k. This is exactly "relative value depending on how many you have." Next.....

 

No, it is in your understanding.  Perhaps a bit in your common sense and compassion too, but that's not part of policy now, is it?

 

Imagine someone raising a family.  They've got an OK job - better than minimum, say $10/hour.  Or about $20K per year if they only work 40 hours per week; let's make it a working couple so they probably make more like $30K if one works part time or for less money (someone has to watch the kids).  Their federal tax liability now is around zero, true.  Because they are essentially living at or below poverty level.  For that $30K a year (take home a little less) they can barely pay the rent, put gas in the car and keep it running so they can get to work, and feed and clothe their two kids.  Health insurance is a pipe dream, savings a wet dream - they make basically enough to tread water without swallowing too much.  An event like a blown transmission or a lost job will put them under water.

 

Now let's take 10% of their income away.  They now have $3,000 less to live on.  What do you think happens to their financial picture?  Is this a minor event - an inconvenience? Or would it be a back breaking financial disaster that might end with them living under an overpass with the kids?

 

Now imagine a family making $500,000 per year.  Yes, they pay Fed taxes - over $100K per year.  Brutal tax burden, no?  At the end of the day their total fed & state tax bill is over $150K.  It still leaves them some $350K or so to live on, for which they can afford a nice home, private school for the kids, maybe a nanny and/or a boat, and the cars are never old shitbox clunkers.

 

Now take $3,000 from this family.  Does this change their life style at all?  Do they have to sell the boat, lose nanny, put the kids in public school?  Lose their house and move under an overpass?

 

Same $3,000 - two different families.  To one $3,000 is a HUGE amount of money, to the other $3,000 won't even cover the cost of the family vacation every summer.  Its loss is inconvenient, but not earth shattering.

 

So a dollar is worth a bit more or less to someone depending on how much they make.  No one making $10 per hour is going to be buying a $4.00 coffee on the way to work every day.

 

-----

 

Sorry even to be replying to this, checked my e-mail and saw spam reports to follow up on...got sucked into replying here.  Sailing today, so you won't hear back from me.

That scenario is precisely why we should compel lenders to provide, 0% interest, straight line amortization mortgages, for this class of people. Mortgage lenders make a shit ton of money on the rest of society, they can afford it, especially if the principle comes from fractionalized lending.



#92 plchacker

plchacker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,771 posts
  • Location:Helwestern AL

Posted 20 June 2013 - 01:05 PM

 

 

Flat tax has two chances - fat and slim.  Who writes the tax code?  Who benefits?  Who invests supports the tax code writers?  Why is it so complicated and convoluted that few can decipher it? 
 
Meanwhile, blame it on the leftistas.  It's funny in a sad clown car kind of way.

 
And the flat tax crowd still fails to recognize it's fundamental flaw - the relative value of a dollar depending on how many you have.

The fundamental flaw is in your thinking only. 10% of $100 = $10 , 10% 1,000,000 = $100k. This is exactly "relative value depending on how many you have." Next.....

 

No, it is in your understanding.  Perhaps a bit in your common sense and compassion too, but that's not part of policy now, is it?

 

Imagine someone raising a family.  They've got an OK job - better than minimum, say $10/hour.  Or about $20K per year if they only work 40 hours per week; let's make it a working couple so they probably make more like $30K if one works part time or for less money (someone has to watch the kids).  Their federal tax liability now is around zero, true.  Because they are essentially living at or below poverty level.  For that $30K a year (take home a little less) they can barely pay the rent, put gas in the car and keep it running so they can get to work, and feed and clothe their two kids.  Health insurance is a pipe dream, savings a wet dream - they make basically enough to tread water without swallowing too much.  An event like a blown transmission or a lost job will put them under water.

 

Now let's take 10% of their income away.  They now have $3,000 less to live on.  What do you think happens to their financial picture?  Is this a minor event - an inconvenience? Or would it be a back breaking financial disaster that might end with them living under an overpass with the kids?

 

Now imagine a family making $500,000 per year.  Yes, they pay Fed taxes - over $100K per year.  Brutal tax burden, no?  At the end of the day their total fed & state tax bill is over $150K.  It still leaves them some $350K or so to live on, for which they can afford a nice home, private school for the kids, maybe a nanny and/or a boat, and the cars are never old shitbox clunkers.

 

Now take $3,000 from this family.  Does this change their life style at all?  Do they have to sell the boat, lose nanny, put the kids in public school?  Lose their house and move under an overpass?

 

Same $3,000 - two different families.  To one $3,000 is a HUGE amount of money, to the other $3,000 won't even cover the cost of the family vacation every summer.  Its loss is inconvenient, but not earth shattering.

 

So a dollar is worth a bit more or less to someone depending on how much they make.  No one making $10 per hour is going to be buying a $4.00 coffee on the way to work every day.

 

-----

 

Sorry even to be replying to this, checked my e-mail and saw spam reports to follow up on...got sucked into replying here.  Sailing today, so you won't hear back from me.

I understand your logic, but it is lacking in a couple areas:

 

1.  This scenario provides incentive for the family making only $10/hour.  Most/many of us start out in this situation but through education, perseverance and work build to a better life.

2.  I know people making over 100K/year who would go under with something as slight as a bad transmission.  They have leveraged their borrowing to the point of near catastrophe.  For them the tax, far more than 10K is a real issue. Health insurance has little to do with your equation, but now their coverage is lacking severely due to Obamacare.  You can rightfully charge them with irresponsible spending, however their pain is pain no less.

3. Job loss in this economy is a very bad situation.  There are far fewer 100K/year jobs out there.  With little/no savings and massive debt, losing a job would certainly put them under.

4. Finally it is not any more fair to tax some more (percentage wise) than others.  It simply is not.  Those who have worked their way up will spend more, that spending supports others.  Government most in many cases is simply a shell game that is devoted to helping those at the bottom and those who can afford to buy a congress critter.  The rest of us are stuck with the tab.



#93 tikipete

tikipete

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,394 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 02:48 PM

All money comes from thin air. It is a subjective decision made by members of the FED, which then INSTRUCTS Treasury to print a certain amount. 

 

If you simply choose to spend this money into circulation at the point of greatest need  you will end up printing less money and generating more business. Further by unlinking Social Security from ANY revenue stream, making income the sole qualifying consideration, you can keep wages down, greatly reduce suffering, and stimulate the economy from the ground up.



#94 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,919 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 02:56 PM

All money comes from thin air. It is a subjective decision made by members of the FED, which then INSTRUCTS Treasury to print a certain amount. 

 

If you simply choose to spend this money into circulation at the point of greatest need  you will end up printing less money and generating more business. Further by unlinking Social Security from ANY revenue stream, making income the sole qualifying consideration, you can keep wages down, greatly reduce suffering, and stimulate the economy from the ground up.

 

What control forces them to print less money?



#95 tikipete

tikipete

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,394 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 03:35 PM

Force? None, the decisions would still be subjective.

 

You could, however demand that this "fictionalized" money be off set by reducing tax revenue, the greater goal being to reduce tax revenue to the minimum possible.



#96 No.6

No.6

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,064 posts
  • Location:Portmeirion
  • Interests:Danger

Posted 20 June 2013 - 04:30 PM


All money comes from thin air. It is a subjective decision made by members of the FED, which then INSTRUCTS Treasury to print a certain amount. 
 
If you simply choose to spend this money into circulation at the point of greatest need  you will end up printing less money and generating more business. Further by unlinking Social Security from ANY revenue stream, making income the sole qualifying consideration, you can keep wages down, greatly reduce suffering, and stimulate the economy from the ground up.

 
What control forces them to print less money?


None. But you could use taxation to then reduce the money supply and check inflationary pressure caused by rolling the presses.

Sorry, just trying to think like Washington.

#97 tikipete

tikipete

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,394 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 04:37 PM

 

All money comes from thin air. It is a subjective decision made by members of the FED, which then INSTRUCTS Treasury to print a certain amount. 
 
If you simply choose to spend this money into circulation at the point of greatest need  you will end up printing less money and generating more business. Further by unlinking Social Security from ANY revenue stream, making income the sole qualifying consideration, you can keep wages down, greatly reduce suffering, and stimulate the economy from the ground up.

 
What control forces them to print less money?

 

None. But you could use taxation to then reduce the money supply and check inflationary pressure caused by rolling the presses.
What control forces them to print less money?
Sorry, just trying to think like Washington.

That's a good thing! If you give the poor some relief (and reduce your own tax obligation) you could then put taxes where they would fight inflation and accomplish some good.

 

For instance you could tax fattening foods and use that revenue to combat the health costs of obesity: tax potato chips but not fresh potatoes. Similarly you could put a very small tax, by volume, on alcohol and earmark that revenue for trauma centers. [I read once a 1 cent per gallon tax on alcohol would pay for ALL Florida's trauma centers]



#98 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,881 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 20 June 2013 - 05:17 PM

I was actually thinking of a modest proposal for the US/China having to do with our military. I'll see if I can flesh it out tomorrow.



#99 tikipete

tikipete

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,394 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 05:20 PM

I was actually thinking of a modest proposal for the US/China having to do with our military. I'll see if I can flesh it out tomorrow.

Sure, anything to distract any discussion having anything to do with tax and banking reform. Why am I not surprised?



#100 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,811 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 10:13 PM


 


Flat tax has two chances - fat and slim.  Who writes the tax code?  Who benefits?  Who invests supports the tax code writers?  Why is it so complicated and convoluted that few can decipher it? 
 
Meanwhile, blame it on the leftistas.  It's funny in a sad clown car kind of way.

 
And the flat tax crowd still fails to recognize it's fundamental flaw - the relative value of a dollar depending on how many you have.

The fundamental flaw is in your thinking only. 10% of $100 = $10 , 10% 1,000,000 = $100k. This is exactly "relative value depending on how many you have." Next.....
 
No, it is in your understanding.  Perhaps a bit in your common sense and compassion too, but that's not part of policy now, is it?
 
Imagine someone raising a family.  They've got an OK job - better than minimum, say $10/hour.  Or about $20K per year if they only work 40 hours per week; let's make it a working couple so they probably make more like $30K if one works part time or for less money (someone has to watch the kids).  Their federal tax liability now is around zero, true.  Because they are essentially living at or below poverty level.  For that $30K a year (take home a little less) they can barely pay the rent, put gas in the car and keep it running so they can get to work, and feed and clothe their two kids.  Health insurance is a pipe dream, savings a wet dream - they make basically enough to tread water without swallowing too much.  An event like a blown transmission or a lost job will put them under water.
 
Now let's take 10% of their income away.  They now have $3,000 less to live on.  What do you think happens to their financial picture?  Is this a minor event - an inconvenience? Or would it be a back breaking financial disaster that might end with them living under an overpass with the kids?
 
Now imagine a family making $500,000 per year.  Yes, they pay Fed taxes - over $100K per year.  Brutal tax burden, no?  At the end of the day their total fed & state tax bill is over $150K.  It still leaves them some $350K or so to live on, for which they can afford a nice home, private school for the kids, maybe a nanny and/or a boat, and the cars are never old shitbox clunkers.
 
Now take $3,000 from this family.  Does this change their life style at all?  Do they have to sell the boat, lose nanny, put the kids in public school?  Lose their house and move under an overpass?
 
Same $3,000 - two different families.  To one $3,000 is a HUGE amount of money, to the other $3,000 won't even cover the cost of the family vacation every summer.  Its loss is inconvenient, but not earth shattering.
 
So a dollar is worth a bit more or less to someone depending on how much they make.  No one making $10 per hour is going to be buying a $4.00 coffee on the way to work every day.
 
-----
 
Sorry even to be replying to this, checked my e-mail and saw spam reports to follow up on...got sucked into replying here.  Sailing today, so you won't hear back from me.

Yes I got it the first time. So let's say the person making less them 30,000 is flat taxed at 5% while the person making over a million is flat taxed at a rate of 15% is it still a flat tax? Yes. Next....




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users