Corps pay no taxes?

[UShadItComing]

What? Two thirds of US corps pay no income tax?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/12/representation-without-ta_n_118455.html

And 68% of foreign companies doing business in the US don't pay taxes?

Obama is going to get some mileage on that one!

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

This again goes back to proving my theory about you.

Lets say this 68% of foriegn corps paid there taxes.. that would in turn relieve tax payers from a huge chunk of taxes as it is.. Which is a direct reflection on conservatism. LEss taxes which could in-turn mean No IRS because the Foriegn corprations are now providing the levy of the taxes once assumed by the American people which equals SMaller government.. All princples of conversatives :D

Remove your "anti-Conservative Canadian" slogan and join us in stating that people can rule themselves better then giant governments without hearts and full of illogical thinking!!!

You know that a better U.S. Economy would directly help Canada right ?!?!

[UShadItComing]

This again goes back to proving my theory about you.

Lets say this 68% of foriegn corps paid there taxes.. that would in turn relieve tax payers from a huge chunk of taxes as it is.. Which is a direct reflection on conservatism. LEss taxes which could in-turn mean No IRS because the Foriegn corprations are now providing the levy of the taxes once assumed by the American people which equals SMaller government.. All princples of conversatives :D

Remove your "anti-Conservative Canadian" slogan and join us in stating that people can rule themselves better then giant governments without hearts and full of illogical thinking!!!

You know that a better U.S. Economy would directly help Canada right ?!?!

First of all, you seem to have purposely left out the part about US corps. Doesn't that idea fit Ron Paul's supply side agenda?

Whatever you want to call fair taxation is fine with me. I'll argue that it is socially responsible government which balances the tax burden appropriately so that you don't end up with a standard of living similar to Mexico's. That's where you're heading and if you can convince others that is conservatism then you just go right ahead. We already put way too much onus on a name to perform in certain ways.

But as far as your and Ron Paul's thinking which is bordering on the edge of sheer lunacy, I'm not going there. I would be happy to hear you try to promote it though.

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

First of all, you seem to have purposely left out the part about US corps. Doesn't that idea fit Ron Paul's supply side agenda?

Whatever you want to call fair taxation is fine with me. I'll argue that it is socially responsible government which balances the tax burden appropriately so that you don't end up with a standard of living similar to Mexico's. That's where you're heading and if you can convince others that is conservatism then you just go right ahead. We already put way too much onus on a name to perform in certain ways.

But as far as your and Ron Paul's thinking which is bordering on the edge of sheer lunacy, I'm not going there. I would be happy to hear you try to promote it though.

You once again prove my entire point. If we also were able to gain the money not being paid by U.S Corps then we would end turn further remove the need to tax on labor.

I can see your already starting to swing to our sides :D I will keep up with the points in your topics to point out just how right this type of thinking is.

BTW.. everyone can agree sweeping change is needed.. to toss aside even one idea is limiting possiblities.

[Libsmasher]

What? Two thirds of US corps pay no income tax?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/12/representation-without-ta_n_118455.html

And 68% of foreign companies doing business in the US don't pay taxes?

Obama is going to get some mileage on that one!

Obama will only get mileage on that one from idiots - admittedly, most Obamabots ARE idiots. :D Most S corporations are for small businesses or micro businesses - the rule for such businesses discourage outside capital investment. Since for such businesses the income is treated as ordinary personal income, it's not surprising that many pay no taxes. What the ol' Huffington Slur Machine is trying to accomplish with this is to get morons to imagine entities like General Motors paying no taxes. However, for "C" corporations, the big ones that matter, the US corporate tax rate is almost the highest in the world:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1466.html

[UShadItComing]

You see Dysfunc, now you have to listen to the venon of libs and he most likely thinks he's as conservative as Ronnie Raygun.

But look , I know where you think you are going on this and I'm too smart to be able to put up with it for much longer. If you want to try to find some solutions I'll be happy to talk to you. If not then you're going to lose me soon.

Why is labeling me so important to you? Is it because you have been programmed into having to reject anything that could be called social change or socialist policy?

How do you feel about your healthcare system or your sliding standard of living? What Ron Paul policies are going to fix those?

[Federal Farmer]

A bit of perspective from someone with more than just a little bit of knowledge on this subject might be in order here.

As the article clearly states;
An outside tax expert, Chris Edwards of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, said increasing numbers of limited liability corporations and so-called "S" corporations pay taxes under individual tax codes.

"Half of all business income in the United States now ends up going through the individual tax code," Edwards said.
What's happening here is that S-Corps (Small Corporations) and LLC's (Limited Liability Corporations) are generally small businesses, which do make up the bulk of not only all businesses, but also employers, in the US, and as such generally don't have the cash flow to justify full Corporate status, so the owners simply claim all of the companies earnings (after 1099's, W-2's, Workers Comp and General Liability, employees matching Social Security, and other business related expenses) on their personal income tax returns, which are taxed at a HIGHER rate than Corporate taxes are.

I myself ran my business as an LLC the first few years I was in business for myself, simply because I was essentially a one man operation, and eventually had a couple of employees, until I got to the point where I was making enough to justify fully incorporating.

Where the article got it all wrong is in their assumption that they weren't paying Federal taxes, because they're paying at the higher "personal" rate, and LLC's don't pay "Corporate taxes", again since all of the money earned (after expenses) is the owners since he/she doesn't have a "CEO", "CFO", or any of the other things that full corporations have.

The other thing that they failed to mention is that many Corporations don't pay Corporate taxes when they have a "bad" year. Simply put, you don't pay taxes if you haven't made any money. The fact is that Ms. Kerr is playing the scare mongering card about the "evil corporations" again, and it's all a bunch of BS.

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

A bit of perspective from someone with more than just a little bit of knowledge on this subject might be in order here.

As the article clearly states;

What's happening here is that S-Corps (Small Corporations) and LLC's (Limited Liability Corporations) are generally small businesses, which do make up the bulk of not only all businesses, but also employers, in the US, and as such generally don't have the cash flow to justify full Corporate status, so the owners simply claim all of the companies earnings (after 1099's, W-2's, Workers Comp and General Liability, employees matching Social Security, and other business related expenses) on their personal income tax returns, which are taxed at a HIGHER rate than Corporate taxes are.

I myself ran my business as an LLC the first few years I was in business for myself, simply because I was essentially a one man operation, and eventually had a couple of employees, until I got to the point where I was making enough to justify fully incorporating.

Where the article got it all wrong is in their assumption that they weren't paying Federal taxes, because they're paying at the higher "personal" rate, and LLC's don't pay "Corporate taxes", again since all of the money earned (after expenses) is the owners since he/she doesn't have a "CEO", "CFO", or any of the other things that full corporations have.

The other thing that they failed to mention is that many Corporations don't pay Corporate taxes when they have a "bad" year. Simply put, you don't pay taxes if you haven't made any money. The fact is that Ms. Kerr is playing the scare mongering card about the "evil corporations" again, and it's all a bunch of BS.

Sweet tyvm for clearing that up but I was pretty sure I heard that before. I guess I should have kept that in mind before commenting...
So I am curoius thou.. did you "in a sence" make a finished good of any kind? and could that in itself be taxed.. because as I see it.. if we elminated Income taxes.. and most businesses in America are made up of small LLC's then I wonder exactly where most of the taxes would come from to fund the government... Guess I better do some more research to further along my hero's view-points :D.. Or maybe its already written in and I just don't understand them fully.

[UShadItComing]

Don't buy their lies dysfunc or you could become even more disfunc than you already are. Assuming that you want us to know you as dysfunctional.

. About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts.

[Federal Farmer]

Sweet tyvm for clearing that up but I was pretty sure I heard that before. I guess I should have kept that in mind before commenting...

My pleasure.

So I am curoius thou.. did you "in a sence" make a finished good of any kind?

I own a design/build firm, so yes we do most definately produce a "finished good".

and could that in itself be taxed..

I, and my products, are most DEFINATELY taxed, from one end to the other.

because as I see it.. if we elminated Income taxes.. and most businesses in America are made up of small LLC's then I wonder exactly where most of the taxes would come from to fund the government... Guess I better do some more research to further along my hero's view-points :D.. Or maybe its already written in and I just don't understand them fully.

Look into the FairTax (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer). It's the only seriously comprehensive means of not only eliminating the income tax, but at the same time maintaining the flow of funds necessary to run the government. I do want to be clear about a couple of things though, there are a couple of "hitches" with the FairTax, so it's not "perfect", but it's a damned sight better than what we've currently got. I also want to be clear that as far as I'm concerned, over 2/3 of the entire budget is un-Constitutional on it's face, and needs to be eliminated. It's long past time that we abandoned all of these "social give-a-way" programs, and got back to making people be responsible for themselves again.

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

**** I don't know what to believe now.. Considering just moments after I read this I saw a news cast about the very same subject on CBS.

They gave an even different stand point says the 2.4 trillions dollars were legal because of lost profits and tax credits...

Which.. if is the case... why even bring it up ??!

BTW my name is a direct reflection of my view points and in turn the enviroment I live in. If the world wasn't this way... maybe I wouldn't be.

LoL who knows thou... If anything I still respect the rights that should innate be given to us being human.. but listening closely to newscast and everything I read.. I wonder how long before the world reflects a different view.

[Federal Farmer]

Don't buy their lies dysfunc or you could become even more disfunc than you already are. Assuming that you want us to know you as dysfunctional.

Oh Lord no, we couldn't possibly have an alternative position presented, and allow someone to make their own decisions based on facts and evidence. That would be TERRIBLE...especially for Socialists hosers like YOU!

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

[QUOTE=Look into the FairTax (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer). It's the only seriously comprehensive means of not only eliminating the income tax, but at the same time maintaining the flow of funds necessary to run the government. I do want to be clear about a couple of things though, there are a couple of "hitches" with the FairTax, so it's not "perfect", but it's a damned sight better than what we've currently got. I also want to be clear that as far as I'm concerned, over 2/3 of the entire budget is un-Constitutional on it's face, and needs to be eliminated. It's long past time that we abandoned all of these "social give-a-way" programs, and got back to making people be responsible for themselves again.[/QUOTE]

Will do :) and apperciate the info :) nice to gain a bit more knowedgle on a subject I am hazy on at best. However I completely agree about 2/3's of the taxes currently levied upon as being Un-constitutional... and find it suprising that so few understand or even care about this.

Yet none will keep me from my missing trying to spread the gospel of truth to the masses :cool:

[Federal Farmer]

Will do :) and apperciate the info :) nice to gain a bit more knowedgle on a subject I am hazy on at best. However I completely agree about 2/3's of the taxes currently levied upon as being Un-constitutional... and find it suprising that so few understand or even care about this.

Yet none will keep me from my missing trying to spread the gospel of truth to the masses :cool:

Again, my pleasure. While I'm not an "expert" on the FairTax, I am more than a bit familiar with it, so if you have any questions, and can't seem to locate the answers, feel free to ask, and I'll do the best I can, or direct you to an appropriate resource.

My own message to the masses is this, "the government should comply with the Constitution, AS WRITTEN".

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

Again, my pleasure. While I'm not an "expert" on the FairTax, I am more than a bit familiar with it, so if you have any questions, and can't seem to locate the answers, feel free to ask, and I'll do the best I can, or direct you to an appropriate resource.

My own message to the masses is this, "the government should comply with the Constitution, AS WRITTEN".

Don't mean to start up a seperate conversation but you seem like you would have done some research in regards to Ron Pauls Policy stance when running for the government. Do have any you disagree on? I'm curoius how you feel about them and some actually insightful negatives since everyone I have ever mentioned this to only gives me slander and not actual negatives to his policies.

I will admit I am supporter of his but not without reservation.. as I have learn no one is perfect.

[NO Obamanation]

Don't mean to start up a seperate conversation but you seem like you would have done some research in regards to Ron Pauls Policy stance when running for the government. Do have any you disagree on? I'm curoius how you feel about them and some actually insightful negatives since everyone I have ever mentioned this to only gives me slander and not actual negatives to his policies.

I will admit I am supporter of his but not without reservation.. as I have learn no one is perfect.

I am not personally for Ron Paul, but I have noticed that people get really uptight when someone says they are for Ron Paul. I dont get why but I have noticed people dont like it. Why do you think that is ?

[GenSeneca]

Don't mean to start up a seperate conversation but you seem like you would have done some research in regards to Ron Pauls Policy stance when running for the government. Do have any you disagree on? I'm curoius how you feel about them and some actually insightful negatives since everyone I have ever mentioned this to only gives me slander and not actual negatives to his policies.

I will admit I am supporter of his but not without reservation.. as I have learn no one is perfect.

Start a thread about Paul. I used to be a fan of his and I'd be glad to participate. :)

[Andy]

You see Dysfunc, now you have to listen to the venon of libs and he most likely thinks he's as conservative as Ronnie Raygun.

Why is labeling me so important to you? Is it because you have been programmed into having to reject anything that could be called social change or socialist policy?

How do you feel about your healthcare system or your sliding standard of living? What Ron Paul policies are going to fix those?

Allowing people to keep the money they rightfully earn will automatically bring up standard of living, and allow them to purchase the health insurance they want.

"Ronnie Raygun" defeated the socialist soviet union, and won the cold war. Further the military systems made fun of by the left, now are proven successes. The ICBM shield is being built, and we have been successful at shooting down mock incoming missiles.

The label maker himself is now labeled, and can't take it? Funny how leftist always say "do as I say, not as I do", and then normally follow it up with how everyone else is a hypocrite.

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

Start a thread about Paul. I used to be a fan of his and I'd be glad to participate. :)

THREAD POSTED!!! Comment my servants COMMENT MUHAHAH!!!!

:D:D:D

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

Allowing people to keep the money they rightfully earn will automatically bring up standard of living, and allow them to purchase the health insurance they want.

"Ronnie Raygun" defeated the socialist soviet union, and won the cold war. Further the military systems made fun of by the left, now are proven successes. The ICBM shield is being built, and we have been successful at shooting down mock incoming missiles.

The label maker himself is now labeled, and can't take it? Funny how leftist always say "do as I say, not as I do", and then normally follow it up with how everyone else is a hypocrite.

To bad it took 20 years to fullfill its mission. As for everything else. RIGHT ON!!!!

[Federal Farmer]

Don't mean to start up a seperate conversation but you seem like you would have done some research in regards to Ron Pauls Policy stance when running for the government. Do have any you disagree on? I'm curoius how you feel about them and some actually insightful negatives since everyone I have ever mentioned this to only gives me slander and not actual negatives to his policies.

I will admit I am supporter of his but not without reservation.. as I have learn no one is perfect.

Don't take this the wrong way MD, but I don't have anything for Ron Paul. It may be a bit "short sighted" of me, but any Congressman who would stand up and say that OIF is "un-Constitutional" is, in my mind, a barking moonbat who needs to be hooded, and QUICKLY, before the guys with the nice white jackets come to take him away.

TXZMZ-XvvzI

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

Don't take this the wrong way MD, but I don't have anything for Ron Paul. It may be a bit "short sighted" of me, but any Congressman who would stand up and say that OIF is "un-Constitutional" is, in my mind, a barking moonbat who needs to be hooded, and QUICKLY, before the guys with the nice white jackets come to take him away.

Well I can understand that if what I get for OIF = Operation Iraqi Freedom.

My only argument I could possibily think to debate that is that President Bush should have had congresses approval before thrusting us into an unprovoked war against and enemy who had no possibility of harming our National Security.

Did Sadam deserve to be outsed ... Yes.. But couldn't his own people have stood up for themselves and done anything ?!?!... We did put him into power but does that nessacarily mean we had to go clean up?

((P.S. if he had congressional approval... my appolgies.. but like I said.. only argument I think that rebutes))

[GenSeneca]

Well I can understand that if what I get for OIF = Operation Iraqi Freedom.

My only argument I could possibily think to debate that is that President Bush should have had congresses approval before thrusting us into an unprovoked war against and enemy who had no possibility of harming our National Security.

Did Sadam deserve to be outsed ... Yes.. But couldn't his own people have stood up for themselves and done anything ?!?!... We did put him into power but does that nessacarily mean we had to go clean up?

((P.S. if he had congressional approval... my appolgies.. but like I said.. only argument I think that rebutes))

1. Congress did approve OIF

2. We didn't put Saddam into power but we DID support him during the Iran/Iraq war... just enough so there would NOT be a clear winner and neither country was dominant in the region.

[Federal Farmer]

Well I can understand that if what I get for OIF = Operation Iraqi Freedom.

My only argument I could possibily think to debate that is that President Bush should have had congresses approval before thrusting us into an unprovoked war against and enemy who had no possibility of harming our National Security.

Did Sadam deserve to be outsed ... Yes.. But couldn't his own people have stood up for themselves and done anything ?!?!... We did put him into power but does that nessacarily mean we had to go clean up?

((P.S. if he had congressional approval... my appolgies.. but like I said.. only argument I think that rebutes))

Congressional approval was given, he just voted against it, and now he's playing sour grapes.

As far as "unprovoked" and "no possible threat", I suggest you re-read the 9-11 Commission Report, and pay particular attention to the part about Kuala Lumpur. On January 5, 2000, a "resident" of the Iraqi Embassy there was dispatched to collect 2 of the "soon to be" 9-11 hijackers at the airport and take them to their hotel, where they met with 2 other "soon to be" hijackers, and other members of the Hamburg Cell just 10 days before these "soon to be" hijackers entered the US.

Saddam was VERY much involved in at least supplying and supporting the 9-11 hijackers, and I'm sure that two Veterans like ourselves can agree that when you do something like that, it's fixing to suck to be you.

Also, we didn't put him into power, he did that all by himself (with a little help from his own people).