It's perfectly legal, seeing as the government designed the tax code that it could be taken advantage of in this way. Not to mention, "corporate tax" is a misnomer, seeing as the consumers just end up paying more for the products to pay for the tax.
If they did nothing illegal and are fully abiding by the US tax code, then the amount they paid (or didn't pay) is justified by the law.
Some will argue that they SHOULD have paid more in taxes, but that would be like saying you, as a private citizen, SHOULD have paid more than the law required, or driven slower than the law allows. If you didn't do either, why not? Why didn't you add an extra $500 to your required tax bill?
I don't necessarily like it, which is why I support something like a flat tax.
I love the flat tax. We should all be required to shoulder the burden equally and the only fair way to do that is by looking at the number of dollars. We certainly shouldn't look at things like ability to pay or the economic impact on the taxpayer.
It's kind of like when I'm carrying groceries home. Each of us gets two bags of cans to carry. If the toddler cannot make it home carrying that much weight, that's his problem. The only fair way to divide up the work is to have him and my 18 year old son carry the same weight.
I think the link may be somewhat confusing. Obviously your tax system is vastly different but does not tax refund just mean that you paid too much tax during the year* and now the gov't is returning the amount above your what you actually owe.
*In australia at least for individuals tax is taken out of your pay. If this is more then actually required you get the extra back. Maybe this is what is happening here. If such then what's the problem?
I think a better figure would be to see gross turnover, profit before certain write offs and the tax paid. Much more complicated then what is on offer here.
I paid tax last year, but I also got a tax refund.
Pay less what? You pay less dollars? You pay less of your net worth? You pay less of your income?
If we moved to a flat tax and the change was revenue neutral, those at the bottom would have to pay many, many more dollars than they pay now. You might say that this is fair because they pay the same percentage, but this doesn't take account of burdens, marginal utility, the ability to save and invest, etc...
It's just the sort of simple thought that appeals to simple people.
Anon, Speaking of simple people, I said that I support something like a flat tax and you automatically take that to mean that I want to create a system where needy people are overburdened.
It isn't wrong on the part of the companies. They have a fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders. It is a problem for those who write the tax laws.
Anon, Your Loftus tunnel vision is resulting in some very condescending remarks. I don't normally see such disrespect from Loftus has you have just demonstrated. Are you making a reverse appeal to authority for loftus' claims?
Turns out that if we listen, in opposition to Loftus, too much we can become worse than him.
"I said that I support something like a flat tax and you automatically take that to mean that I want to create a system where needy people are overburdened."
Show me a progressive tax plan that doesn't place undue burden on the poor and I'll show you something that isn't "like" a flat tax.
I'm going to keep deleting posts about Loftus' personal business until you stop posting them. I'm guessing you're a Loftus fan who wants to make Loftus's opponents appear small-minded.
I don't quite get one item on Sander's list: he says GE didn't pay any taxes, got money from the fed, but moved business overseas where tax rates are LOWER.
What's lower than negative taxes?
And why is increasing taxes going to make GE want to build more stuff here, instead?
16 comments:
It's perfectly legal, seeing as the government designed the tax code that it could be taken advantage of in this way. Not to mention, "corporate tax" is a misnomer, seeing as the consumers just end up paying more for the products to pay for the tax.
If they did nothing illegal and are fully abiding by the US tax code, then the amount they paid (or didn't pay) is justified by the law.
Some will argue that they SHOULD have paid more in taxes, but that would be like saying you, as a private citizen, SHOULD have paid more than the law required, or driven slower than the law allows. If you didn't do either, why not? Why didn't you add an extra $500 to your required tax bill?
I don't necessarily like it, which is why I support something like a flat tax.
I love the flat tax. We should all be required to shoulder the burden equally and the only fair way to do that is by looking at the number of dollars. We certainly shouldn't look at things like ability to pay or the economic impact on the taxpayer.
It's kind of like when I'm carrying groceries home. Each of us gets two bags of cans to carry. If the toddler cannot make it home carrying that much weight, that's his problem. The only fair way to divide up the work is to have him and my 18 year old son carry the same weight.
See, I'm very smart. Flat tax.
I think the link may be somewhat confusing. Obviously your tax system is vastly different but does not tax refund just mean that you paid too much tax during the year* and now the gov't is returning the amount above your what you actually owe.
*In australia at least for individuals tax is taken out of your pay. If this is more then actually required you get the extra back. Maybe this is what is happening here. If such then what's the problem?
I think a better figure would be to see gross turnover, profit before certain write offs and the tax paid. Much more complicated then what is on offer here.
I paid tax last year, but I also got a tax refund.
Anon,
Your analogy doesn't work. Earning less would mean you pay less. Your toddler would not be burdened with carrying the same load.
"Earning less would mean you pay less."
Pay less what? You pay less dollars? You pay less of your net worth? You pay less of your income?
If we moved to a flat tax and the change was revenue neutral, those at the bottom would have to pay many, many more dollars than they pay now. You might say that this is fair because they pay the same percentage, but this doesn't take account of burdens, marginal utility, the ability to save and invest, etc...
It's just the sort of simple thought that appeals to simple people.
Anon,
Speaking of simple people, I said that I support something like a flat tax and you automatically take that to mean that I want to create a system where needy people are overburdened.
It seems immoral, but not illegal.
Victor are you ever going to respond about 'secular outpost' or just leave me hanging in the breeze over there talking about you...:O
It isn't wrong on the part of the companies. They have a fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders. It is a problem for those who write the tax laws.
I agree that's a better way to put it.
I was just reading a comment from Loftus that was intelligent, articulate, and interesting. here. Victor's response doesn't really get at it directly.
Anon, Your Loftus tunnel vision is resulting in some very condescending remarks. I don't normally see such disrespect from Loftus has you have just demonstrated. Are you making a reverse appeal to authority for loftus' claims?
Turns out that if we listen, in opposition to Loftus, too much we can become worse than him.
"I said that I support something like a flat tax and you automatically take that to mean that I want to create a system where needy people are overburdened."
Show me a progressive tax plan that doesn't place undue burden on the poor and I'll show you something that isn't "like" a flat tax.
I'm going to keep deleting posts about Loftus' personal business until you stop posting them. I'm guessing you're a Loftus fan who wants to make Loftus's opponents appear small-minded.
I don't quite get one item on Sander's list: he says GE didn't pay any taxes, got money from the fed, but moved business overseas where tax rates are LOWER.
What's lower than negative taxes?
And why is increasing taxes going to make GE want to build more stuff here, instead?
Show me a progressive tax plan that doesn't place undue burden on the poor and I'll show you something that isn't "like" a flat tax.
Any tax plan can have a provision that excludes poor people from paying taxes.
Post a Comment