People Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

. . . . but it takes parents involved in their childs education as much as it takes a good school. I personally think that many parents fail their children and place blame on the schools for expecting the school to deal with issues beyond the responsiblity of the school.

---

BINGO!!!
Parent Power.

:s mokin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

I work as an accountant; in my line of work I have helped clients set up many many companies with the express purpose of tax minimisation. Be they Trusts, Companies, Joint Ventures, Limited Partnerships or even instruments like Superannuation Funds, things are set up all the time precisely for this reason.
Money always follows the path of least resistance and taxation law is always at least twenty steps behind, because lawyers will look at existing taxation law and always work out schemes to minimise taxation.

The question of what is "Fair" is always worth asking of society. What's Fair and Just ought to be ideals of any cohesive society.

---

I don't disagree with the above at all. Any business would be wise to pay minimal taxes within the law.

That being said, can you honestly say that individuals don't do the same? A large percentage of people who have personal taxes done by accountants and/or tax services do so only in hopes of a larger return or a lesser payment. So why is it large corporations that everyone is so up in arms about? From my experiences the smaller cash oriented business owners are the most likely to "cook the books", while large corporations have much more documentation in each transaction making it harder to do so. And lets face facts, quite a few individuals will blatantly cheat on taxes as much as possible regardless of if they file themselves or pay someone to do it for them. This includes a great many people getting huge tax breaks and financial assistant through the government, and I see that in action all the time.

I'd venture to say that at least in the US, the combined loopholes, cheating, evasion etc of a specific amount of money within a group of individuals is equal to or greater than the majority of major corporations making that same amount of money. Likewise with bailout programs, federal aid for disasters, etc.

I have long advocated getting rid of all income taxes and closing loopholes in collecting consumption taxes. That alone removes the ability of millions of small business owners to cheat and not declare cash transactions. It also taxes all the illegal money flowing through the hands of all people. The only way they would avoid taxation is by not spending.


As for "fair and just" once again I pose the reality of it. Is it "fair and just" that any of us living in relative luxury with modern technologies, medicine, ect live as such at our income levels when the wage of the average worker on a wordwide scale is still less than $10,000?

Any of us living with any luxury items at all could easily adjust our lifestyles and assist those less fortunate through charity and our time, but how many people do that instead of wanting more for themselves first?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

BINGO!!!
Parent Power.

:s mokin:

---

It's no shock at all to me that would would agree on this point Race! :)

Quote:

---

Pay growth for workers in Britain hit a record low between 2010 and 2011, according to official data last week. Pay was up just 0.4% on a year ago in terms of gross weekly earnings, meaning that incomes are tumbling in real terms, given that inflation stands at 5%. The Office for National Statistics also said the gap between Britain's highest and lowest paid workers had widened dramatically over the past year.

---

The big squeeze: warning over incomes as Britain goes on strike | UK news | The Guardian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

I have long advocated getting rid of all income taxes and closing loopholes in collecting consumption taxes. That alone removes the ability of millions of small business owners to cheat and not declare cash transactions. It also taxes all the illegal money flowing through the hands of all people. The only way they would avoid taxation is by not spending.

---

Because the utility of income decreases as income increases, it means that as people's income goes up, they're not as likely to spend that next Dollar. The burden of consumption taxes fall more squarely on poorer people because they spend comparatively more of their income and it's even worse for retirees, who might spend more than their income by driving down pooled savings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Any of us living with any luxury items at all could easily adjust our lifestyles and assist those less fortunate through charity and our time, but how many people do that instead of wanting more for themselves first?

---

The US has kinder provisions for deductions on charity than Australia does and so rates of charity are higher, but typically the rate of charity in Australia amounts to less than 0.5% of income. As a way of actually providing for people less fortunate, it's pretty well much fighting against human nature.

Aside:
Ten Graphs that show that the US has very low taxation:
Ten Charts that Prove the United States Is a Low-Tax Country

And a report which indicates that the United States is the third lowest taxing nation in the the OECD
Tax revenues stabilise in OECD countries in 2010
Mexico (18.7% in 2010) and Chile (20.9%) have the lowest tax-to-GDP ratios among OECD countries. The United States has the third lowest ratio in the OECD region at 24.8% with Korea at 25.1% and Turkey at 26.0%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Because the utility of income decreases as income increases, it means that as people's income goes up, they're not as likely to spend that next Dollar. The burden of consumption taxes fall more squarely on poorer people because they spend comparatively more of their income and it's even worse for retirees, who might spend more than their income by driving down pooled savings.

---

Taking the burden off the less fortunate is simple. Basic needs have no tax or very little. As the items change in status to wants/luxuries the tax rises. Some of our state and local tax is already structured this way and it's easy to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

The US has kinder provisions for deductions on charity than Australia does and so rates of charity are higher, but typically the rate of charity in Australia amounts to less than 0.5% of income. As a way of actually providing for people less fortunate, it's pretty well much fighting against human nature.

---

But my point remains regardless of what nations allow more charity deductions. Most "average people" on these forums have a great deal more luxury than they think and take it for granted. If they really wanted to make a change they could, but IMO most people tend to look out for themselves and not others, even when they are saying change needs to be made.


And once again, nobody justifies the claims against the large corporations other than pointing fingers and saying they are guilty of something the general public is not guilty of. If not for the general publics own desires the corporations wouldn't ever get wealthy to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

And once again, nobody justifies the claims against the large corporations other than pointing fingers and saying they are guilty of something the general public is not guilty of. If not for the general publics own desires the corporations wouldn't ever get wealthy to begin with.

---

But if a corporation is the method of organisation which is used to answer the question of collective wealth, then it stands to reason that that same person should be also made to answer the question of collective governance and more specifically how to pay for that.
Someone somewhere has to pay the piper and the truth of the matter is that currently corporations collectively are a dead weight when it comes to paying for the governance of the United States (I mention the US because other nations like Australia run surpluses because we have decent government and taxation policies).
Cut government spending to ZERO and you still have a problem which needs to be paid for. The point is that the US generally isn't paying enough tax and hasn't done so, almost since its inception and someone needs to start paying.

But as you say the USA has always been a low tax low spend country (except with military spending!). So any political party which promised more tax isn't going to be around for long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

But if a corporation is the method of organisation which is used to answer the question of collective wealth, then it stands to reason that that same person should be also made to answer the question of collective governance and more specifically how to pay for that.
Someone somewhere has to pay the piper and the truth of the matter is that currently corporations collectively are a dead weight when it comes to paying for the governance of the United States (I mention the US because other nations like Australia run surpluses because we have decent government and taxation policies).
Cut government spending to ZERO and you still have a problem which needs to be paid for. The point is that the US generally isn't paying enough tax and hasn't done so, almost since its inception and someone needs to start paying.

---

The corporate tax rate in the US is higher than that of most countries, it's simply filled with far too many loopholes in the code. But this is no different IMO than the personal tax code. There are far too many breaks and loopholes that can be exploited. In the US the tax system has actually become a form of welfare in some cases, as people can get a return larger than what they paid in.

I've still yet to see any example of the corporations being at fault. Just as with any wise taxpayer they try to keep taxes as low as legal. I don't currently own any corporations but can't reason the anger directed at them, as they pay their legal share the same as anyone else.

IMO the problem in the US is more centered around hidden and/or deceptive assistance and welfare programs (both at home and abroad), waste within many agencies, and poor budget practices. Individual states often do a much better job at all of the above, and end up with budget surpluses many years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

But as you say the USA has always been a low tax low spend country (except with military spending!). So any political party which promised more tax isn't going to be around for long.

---

This I can probably agree with. The problem is that too many politicians will cater to idiots who actually think we are going to end up with a quality government run health care system at no cost to them. Which would be true for many of the idiots since they are the ones sitting on their butts waiting for a hand out.

Though they won't often admit it, the politicians have to understand that if the working class doesn't keep paying the bill for these programs, they lose the vote of those on both sides of the program.