[ale] Corporate taxes...
Randal Jarrett
rsj at radio.org
Thu Nov 14 19:01:53 EST 2002
As a follow on to your #2 item, that would make a federal sales tax the
fairest method of taxation..
Randy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mainwizard at vei.net [mailto:mainwizard at vei.net]
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 10:32 AM
> To: ale at ale.org
> Subject: Re: Re: [ale] Corporate taxes...
>
>
> 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.
>
---
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