[ale] Corporate taxes...
mainwizard at vei.net
mainwizard at vei.net
Thu Nov 14 10:32:00 EST 2002
Two *quick* points.
1. F. Grant Robertson is correct in his facts. All taxes are ulimately paid by people.
2. I believe his conclusions to be incorrectly applied. If corperations were taxed at a point that people were not, then you would only pay taxes when you bought goods or services. Thus, a richer person who buys more would shoulder more of the tax burden than a poorer person who buys less. This, I believe, is the way it should be.
Ed.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Rose
Sent: 11/13/2002 12:23:44 PM
To: terry at esc1.com
Cc: f.g.robertson at alexiongroup.com;ale at ale.org
Subject: Re: [ale] Corporate taxes...
> I love to hear the right wing conservative "fortunate" ones whine about
> their taxes. Boo friggin hoo. We all have to support our country and
> our government. Just pay your damn taxes and shut up. If we had a flat
> tax, then there would be no discussion, we'd all pay the same
> percentage. Then again you "fortunate" ones couldn't avoid paying YOUR
> share. Maybe only liberals are smart enough to realize that taxes are a
> necessary evil. And that if we all pitch in our fair share, then the
> country remains solvent. And furthermore, there have only been a
> handful of true liberals in Congress the past 20 years. This government
> has been dominated by right wing Conservatives and moderate
> conservatives since the 70's. If you want to blame someone, blame
> yourself. You voted for these right wing conservative bozos who value
> corporate freedom above individual freedom. Now you and I are reaping
> the rewards of Reaganomics.
> Any entity that doesn't pay taxes should have no influence in US laws
> or policies. A person that avoids paying taxes should not be allowed to
> vote. A corporation that doesn't pay taxes should not be allowed to
> lobby congress or give money to political campaigns. You can't reap the
> rewards of this economy without taking some of the tax burden.
>
>
> On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 11:33, Terry Lee Tucker wrote:
> > I had intended to stay out of this; however, your comments are exactly
> > correct and you have quite effectively summed up the entire situation.
> > Would you run for office? I'll vote for ya :^)
> >
> > F. Grant Robertson wrote:
> >
> > >Did you not read what I replied to you? GE as an entity may have paid
> > >no actual tax but, the shareholders and employees paid taxes on the
> > >dividends and wages they were paid. Even Jack Welch, paid taxes.. and
> > >believe you me he paid quite alot of them.
> > >
> > >If you eliminated personal income tax, and forced the corporations to
> > >pay for the burdens of the federal government, you would not create any
> > >net difference in where the money came from. You would only create the
> > >illusion that individuals pay no tax.. The reality is quite the
> > >contrary though, as people who earn money (consumers) are the ones who
> > >provide the income to the corporation, they are in turn the ones who
> > >bear the burden of any tax, regardless of who is technically liable for
> > >it under the tax code.
> > >
> > >The myth of corporate taxes is only a device used to make you as a voter
> > >think that you are being relieved of the burden. the end result of any
> > >tax is money _you_ earned through work or investment is confiscated at
> > >the point of a gun by the federal government. It makes absolutely no
> > >difference who signs the check, it's coming out of _your_ pocket.
> > >
> > >The only exception comes if you are one of the "unfortunate" people who
> > >the liberals have relieved of their own tax burden by shifting that
> > >burden to those who are "fortunate". The end goal of the Democrats is to
> > >eliminate the direct, visible tax burden on the lower and middle class
> > >so that they think they are getting a deal and a free ride. However,
> > >this idea breaks down once transfered from paper to practice because of
> > >the principles I've outlined above. Any income for the federal
> > >government _must_ come from GDP. When you expand your thoughts to
> > >visualize this larger picture, and remove individuals and corporations
> > >from view (by taking all as a whole, hence the concept of GDP or Gross
> > >Domestic Product) it becomes crystal clear. More money in federal income
> > >directly translates to less free capital in the open economy. If you
> > >ran the numbers and expressed the yearly federal budget as a percentage
> > >of GDP, you'd find that the total tax burden is growing at a rate beyond
> > >that of the growth of GDP. This by definition is an impossible cycle to
> > >continue, as eventually, all of GDP becomes the sole property of
> > >government.. and that by definition is the economics of communism.
> > >
> > >It's plain and simple, it's right there in front of you but you refuse
> > >to see it.
> > >
> > >-G
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 10:42, James P. Kinney III wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 10:01, Brian J. Dowd wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Ok...my blood has finally reached the boiling point...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>The only thing you left out was to close the tax loopholes
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>Since all tax "loopholes" are congressional laws initiated by the House
> > >>>and passed by both
> > >>>the House and the Senate. And since both houses have been almost totally
> > >>>under the control of Demorats for the past 48 years...What, exactly, is
> > >>>your thesis?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>The process of paying taxes requires money. It has always seemed to me
> > >>that since corporations are an artificial entity whose existence is
> > >>solely for the accumulation of money, they should be required to chip in
> > >>as I am required to chip in. I have always viewed taxes as the means for
> > >>funding the processes we, as a collective people, want to see done.
> > >>
> > >>I place the blame on the current loopholes that allowed GE to earn
> > >>billions and pay $0 tax squarely on the greed of the people that make
> > >>the rules and the greed of the people that asked for the rules to be
> > >>made.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>that allow
> > >>>>corporation to earn billions and pay no taxes. GE, Enron, and several
> > >>>>others have managed to avoid paying taxes on the billions they earned in
> > >>>>profits
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>Corporations are figments of lawyers' imaginations and corporate taxes
> > >>>are figments of liberals' dreams. Corporations are totally owned by
> > >>>shareholders, ie: *people*, who then wind up paying the taxes on any
> > >>>imputed profits. Any tax actually paid by corporations merely serves to
> > >>>raise the production costs of its goods so that all its customers wind
> > >>>up paying this hidden tax when they buy its products.
> > >>>
> > >>>If you really want to learn about (not just argue about) the
> > >>>ramifications of "corporate taxes" please give http://www.fairtax.org a
> > >>>few minutes of your time after you calm down.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>I have read much from that site before. And I still believe very
> > >>strongly that an entity whose only reason for existence is the financial
> > >>conquest of a market should be part of the funding process for the goods
> > >>and services that the government attempts to provide to the entire
> > >>population. As I see it, much of the current system of rules and
> > >>policies and processes exist to benefit that direct class of artificial
> > >>people. So, since they do have pockets lined with gold, why should they
> > >>not financially support the system that allows them to thrive here
> > >>better than anywhere else in the world.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>while our schools were cramming 35 kids into a trailer called a
> > >>>>classroom in front of a single teacher who is supposed to train these
> > >>>>kids to become good employees of these companies.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>I'd seriously like to see your references to studies which correlate
> > >>>class size or classroom construction methods to SAT scores or some other
> > >>>measure of students' depth of knowledge. I will read your info after I
> > >>>calm down. ;-)
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>I teach, for one source of data. The direct evidence is getting harder
> > >>to come by as a layman. But some plugging on the web shows that the
> > >>schools with smaller class sizes will, on average, have better
> > >>performing students than schools with larger class sizes.
> > >>
> > >>It really is all about investment. Some areas of the country are willing
> > >>to invest more into their schools than others. The immediate payback is
> > >>bragging rights based on test scores. The long term payback is a better
> > >>educated population with higher lifetime earning potential to fill the
> > >>coffers of government with their tax money.
> > >>
> > >>The reference to trailers is not a slap on building style. It is an
> > >>attack on the poor planning and budgetary woes of many school systems.
> > >>
> > >>It is well known in the education profession that the closer a class can
> > >>get to the one-on-one mentor/student scenario found in graduate school,
> > >>the higher the learning rate becomes. As society moves towards using
> > >>more technology, the total amount of knowledge needed by an individual
> > >>to be an active participant in this society is increasing.
> > >>
> > >>So we have class sizes mandated by non-teachers in Georgia to be 32
> > >>students to one teacher maximum. This number has been chosen as the best
> > >>trade-off between teaching paradigms and budgetary concerns.
> > >>
> > >>I am still looking for a full-time job. But not in Georgia. Or anywhere
> > >>in the south, for that matter.
> > >>
> > >>--
> > >>James P. Kinney III \Changing the mobile computing world/
> > >>President and CEO \ one Linux user /
> > >>Local Net Solutions,LLC \ at a time. /
> > >>770-493-8244 \.___________________________./
> > >>
> > >>GPG ID: 829C6CA7 James P. Kinney III (M.S. Physics)
> > >><jkinney at localnetsolutions.com>
> > >>Fingerprint = 3C9E 6366 54FC A3FE BA4D 0659 6190 ADC3 829C 6CA7
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >---
> > >This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
> > >See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be
> > >sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Sparta, NC 28675 USA
> > 336.372.6812
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
> > See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be
> > sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
> >
> --
> Jeff Rose
>
> jojerose at mindspring.com
>
>
>
>
> ---
> This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
> See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be
> sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
>
>
---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
More information about the Ale
mailing list