5 ms·

You thought that times article was entertainment? It seemed to touch the major tax issues to me. Bottom line, individuals don't get these kind of tax relief opt

You thought that times article was entertainment? It seemed to touch the major tax issues to me. Bottom line, individuals don't get these kind of tax relief options

klapinat0r 14y ago
In my opinion, individuals aren't supposed to. Businesses have lower base tax rates and deductions in order to encourage money making, and thus job creating, environments.
- jbooth 14y ago
  You could argue that lower taxes on individuals stimulate demand and encourage job creation, too. More to the point, right now most of the fortune 500 companies are sitting on piles of cash and not hiring, so I question your "money making -> job creating" quote. At the end of the day, we've got bills to pay, and any deviation from "everyone pays a fair share" should have the burden of proving it's worth it.
  - aiscott 14y ago
    Money doesn't sit still unless it is truly hard cash and stuffed under a mattress. When companies sit on huge piles of cash, what that really means is they have invested huge piles of cash. That means they gave that money to someone else, and perhaps they are hiring, or perhaps they in turn invested it again.
    - jbooth 14y ago
      Maybe it's invested in China. Maybe it's run through 10 mutual funds on the way to becoming 10 cents on the dollar in terms of salary. "The cash probably goes somewhere" isn't that convincing. I'm not saying that companies should hire with extra cash if they don't need the employees. That would be a bad business decision. I'm just saying that "cash sitting on the sidelines = probably employment somewhere" isn't a great justification for them paying less taxes than I do. I work too, you know.
  - klapinat0r 14y ago
    > You could argue that lower taxes on individuals stimulate demand and encourage job creation, too. Correct, but you should also consider that creating a company creating jobs also adds another tax payer to the economy. > should have the burden of proving it's worth it. That is actually the whole point. The impact of consumption (purchasing power) will over time (if increasing) make it reasonable for companies who experiences these demands, to hire more employees to follow. How does that deviate from the idea of lowering tax so that the companies have incentives to create these jobs in the first place? Imagine the tax is twice as high (which, in most countries, is equal to the max taxation of indivduals). If that increase causes the company to only hire one (or none) employees, how would that be benificial? The new jobs would provide more tax revenue to the government, keeping in mind there's still the tax which the company pays, and the two tax filings by the job holders. But to your point, let's say both coorporations and individuals pay the low income tax. I'll try to say this the least synical way I can: there is a trade off between working and leisure. People (in general) would work less, which is not desirable if you're trying to maximize tax revenue. Overall, what I'm trying to convey is that consumption and company tax rates are combined means to a goal - tax revenue. What I question in your post is how stimulated demand creates more jobs if there's a shortage of employees due to people not needing to work as much.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    Could you define "fair share"? Near as I can tell Apple consumes very little in terms of government services - corporate registration, some contract enforcement, police protection, all very cheap stuff. It's highly unlikely they are a net drain on the government. So how are they not paying their "fair share"? Perhaps you should define what you mean by "fair share".
    - jbooth 14y ago
      For "fair share", I'd settle for "not grotesquely underpaying as a % of income, compared to peons like myself". This isn't about Apple specifically as it is about distortions from the fact that big players have the means to pay a lower % of taxes than little players. As far as what they consume, they're based in the US, with the best technical workforce in the world. Everything about Apple is an only-in-America story. Turning around and saying "Oh, all we consume is some police protection" is pretty dishonest in view of that. Like they'd be fine if you transported the campus to Sierra Leone and hired good security? The only other countries developed enough to have conceivably yielded an Apple all levy higher taxes than us (VAT vs corporate income notwithstanding), and a higher regulatory burden. "Fair share" isn't so much to ask for, when you look at the competition in terms of countries.
      - yummyfajitas 14y ago
        Why do you feel that a web of contracts with specific interface should pay the same % of profits as tax that you pay as a % of income? Note that the people who own Apple generally do pay a similar percentage - some of it in the form of corporate income, some of it as cap gains. As far as what they consume, they're based in the US, with the best technical workforce in the world. I'd bet good money that Apple's workforce is received a disproportionate amount of education outside the US. For example, the US government didn't educate Jonathan Ive. Besides which, the workforce was already charged for that and Apple is paying a wage premium to compensate for it. Since you seem to believe Apple consumes more than just police protection, please be specific about what you think they consume. Which of the major services do you believe enabled Apple to be an "only-in-America" story? Was it redistribution from the young to the old, or was it the war on Iraqis?
- specialist 14y ago
  Citation please. Do you have examples of tax cuts leading to job creation?
RawData 14y ago
Of course they do...All individuals are free to form corporations and take advantage of these loopholes...
DanBC 14y ago
Rich individuals with good accountants get to chose from a variety of tax avoidance methods, ranging from regular "following the rules" through "finding new loopholes" through "finding new loopholes knowing they'll be closed soon" to outright tax evasion. Small companies, and individuals without clever accountants, miss out on those benefits. Since companies benefit from the advantages of the nation state in which they're based (rule of law, policing (often protecting their products) roads, etc etc) they should make an effort to pay reasonable taxes.

You thought that times article was entertainment? It seemed to touch the major tax issues to me. Bottom line, individuals don't get these kind of tax relief options

klapinat0r 14y ago

In my opinion, individuals aren't supposed to. Businesses have lower base tax rates and deductions in order to encourage money making, and thus job creating, environments.

jbooth 14y ago
You could argue that lower taxes on individuals stimulate demand and encourage job creation, too. More to the point, right now most of the fortune 500 companies are sitting on piles of cash and not hiring, so I question your "money making -> job creating" quote. At the end of the day, we've got bills to pay, and any deviation from "everyone pays a fair share" should have the burden of proving it's worth it.
- aiscott 14y ago
  Money doesn't sit still unless it is truly hard cash and stuffed under a mattress. When companies sit on huge piles of cash, what that really means is they have invested huge piles of cash. That means they gave that money to someone else, and perhaps they are hiring, or perhaps they in turn invested it again.
  - jbooth 14y ago
    Maybe it's invested in China. Maybe it's run through 10 mutual funds on the way to becoming 10 cents on the dollar in terms of salary. "The cash probably goes somewhere" isn't that convincing. I'm not saying that companies should hire with extra cash if they don't need the employees. That would be a bad business decision. I'm just saying that "cash sitting on the sidelines = probably employment somewhere" isn't a great justification for them paying less taxes than I do. I work too, you know.
- klapinat0r 14y ago
  > You could argue that lower taxes on individuals stimulate demand and encourage job creation, too. Correct, but you should also consider that creating a company creating jobs also adds another tax payer to the economy. > should have the burden of proving it's worth it. That is actually the whole point. The impact of consumption (purchasing power) will over time (if increasing) make it reasonable for companies who experiences these demands, to hire more employees to follow. How does that deviate from the idea of lowering tax so that the companies have incentives to create these jobs in the first place? Imagine the tax is twice as high (which, in most countries, is equal to the max taxation of indivduals). If that increase causes the company to only hire one (or none) employees, how would that be benificial? The new jobs would provide more tax revenue to the government, keeping in mind there's still the tax which the company pays, and the two tax filings by the job holders. But to your point, let's say both coorporations and individuals pay the low income tax. I'll try to say this the least synical way I can: there is a trade off between working and leisure. People (in general) would work less, which is not desirable if you're trying to maximize tax revenue. Overall, what I'm trying to convey is that consumption and company tax rates are combined means to a goal - tax revenue. What I question in your post is how stimulated demand creates more jobs if there's a shortage of employees due to people not needing to work as much.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Could you define "fair share"? Near as I can tell Apple consumes very little in terms of government services - corporate registration, some contract enforcement, police protection, all very cheap stuff. It's highly unlikely they are a net drain on the government. So how are they not paying their "fair share"? Perhaps you should define what you mean by "fair share".
  - jbooth 14y ago
    For "fair share", I'd settle for "not grotesquely underpaying as a % of income, compared to peons like myself". This isn't about Apple specifically as it is about distortions from the fact that big players have the means to pay a lower % of taxes than little players. As far as what they consume, they're based in the US, with the best technical workforce in the world. Everything about Apple is an only-in-America story. Turning around and saying "Oh, all we consume is some police protection" is pretty dishonest in view of that. Like they'd be fine if you transported the campus to Sierra Leone and hired good security? The only other countries developed enough to have conceivably yielded an Apple all levy higher taxes than us (VAT vs corporate income notwithstanding), and a higher regulatory burden. "Fair share" isn't so much to ask for, when you look at the competition in terms of countries.
    - yummyfajitas 14y ago
      Why do you feel that a web of contracts with specific interface should pay the same % of profits as tax that you pay as a % of income? Note that the people who own Apple generally do pay a similar percentage - some of it in the form of corporate income, some of it as cap gains. As far as what they consume, they're based in the US, with the best technical workforce in the world. I'd bet good money that Apple's workforce is received a disproportionate amount of education outside the US. For example, the US government didn't educate Jonathan Ive. Besides which, the workforce was already charged for that and Apple is paying a wage premium to compensate for it. Since you seem to believe Apple consumes more than just police protection, please be specific about what you think they consume. Which of the major services do you believe enabled Apple to be an "only-in-America" story? Was it redistribution from the young to the old, or was it the war on Iraqis?
specialist 14y ago
Citation please. Do you have examples of tax cuts leading to job creation?

RawData 14y ago

Of course they do...All individuals are free to form corporations and take advantage of these loopholes...

DanBC 14y ago

Rich individuals with good accountants get to chose from a variety of tax avoidance methods, ranging from regular "following the rules" through "finding new loopholes" through "finding new loopholes knowing they'll be closed soon" to outright tax evasion. Small companies, and individuals without clever accountants, miss out on those benefits. Since companies benefit from the advantages of the nation state in which they're based (rule of law, policing (often protecting their products) roads, etc etc) they should make an effort to pay reasonable taxes.