NationStates Jolt Archive

Before you respond consider this;

Personal income taxes in most places are progressive - the more you earn the higher the ratio of your income you pay.

Regressive taxes are the opposite - the less income you make the higher the ratio you pay - Drivers license fees is an example of these.

Corporations set their prices based on the costs of production - including materials, labor and taxes. Every time one of these goes up the cost of goods will also increase. So - corporate income taxes affect the poor to a greater degree than the wealthy - they are regressive.

Therfore there are two positions to consider in this thread - Eliminate corporate taxes or eliminate personal taxes; each has its advantages and disadvantages;

First - eliminate corporate taxes and increase income taxes. The advantages include;
1) More progressive taxation.
2) Elimination of the demand for complex corporate tax loopholes - all corporate income passes through to owners and is taxed at personal income tax rates.
3) A considerable incentive for corporations to be located in your nation - bringing with them jobs and prosperity.
4) Higher taxation on passive income. (dividends)

Then we could consider the alternative - eliminate personal income tax rates and tax only corporate (or other business forms) income. The advantages include;

1) A considerable reduction in the cost of collecting taxes - fewer payers to collect from.
2) Elimination of disincentive to produce on citizens caused when they experience radically high income tax brackets.
3) Less cost in oversight and compliance - far fewer entities to audit!
4) Every citizen shares the tax burden equally - essentially creating a tax system based on consumption. Not quite a flat tax - but with many similarities.

So - given only these choices which would you rather - a tax system based solely on personal income tax or a tax system based solely on corporate income tax?

why should we set free our legal creations altogether.

corporations are our creations of law and cannot exist without
the laws that construct them.
we should keep these things on a short leash.


besides,
corporate income tax is the only actual income tax that
has to be paid.
there is not law that requires an individual to pay an income
tax because the tax is on profits. work is the exchange of
labor for money; i.e. one does not really gain profits from it.
yes, i pay income taxes. unfortunately.
there is even a case recently in which the jury found the guy
NOT GUILTY of not paying taxes because the prosecution failed
to present to the jury the law that requires him to pay.

**********edit it********
The info on income taxes I got from this video.
"America: Freedom to Fascism"
available on google video.
I'm not quite sure what to think about it.

It was pretty interesting, until the director starts talking about gold.
I'm like, who cares. I don't give a rat about gold. You can have those rocks
if you want. I personally have no use for them.
*****************


corporations have to pay income tax.
that is the law.
we should keep that.

We should eliminate both. But, if only one could go, hmmm, I would say cut each one by half.

1) A considerable reduction in the cost of collecting taxes - fewer payers to collect from.
2) Elimination of disincentive to produce on citizens caused when they experience radically high income tax brackets.
3) Less cost in oversight and compliance - far fewer entities to audit!
4) Every citizen shares the tax burden equally - essentially creating a tax system based on consumption. Not quite a flat tax - but with many similarities.

1) This is not medieval times, some one does not personally go around collecting taxes.
2) What?
3) Excellent, less oversight, brilliant! :rolleyes:
4) No.

Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters."
-- Grover Cleveland


"The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation.
"A corporation has no rights except those given it by law. It can exercise no power except that conferred upon it by the people through legislation, and the people should be as free to withhold as to give, public interest and not private advantage being the end in view."
-- Secretary of State and 3-time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan


"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
-- Thomas Jefferson


"I am more than ever convinced of the dangers to which the free and unbiased exercise of political opinion - the only sure foundation and safeguard of republican government - would be exposed by any further increase of the already overgrown influence of corporate authorities."
-- Martin Van Buren


I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.
"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
-- Abraham Lincoln


for more on oUR *LEGAL* creations,
see http://www.poclad.org

1) This is not medieval times, some one does not personally go around collecting taxes.
2) What?
3) Excellent, less oversight, brilliant! :rolleyes:
4) No.

1) Taxes aren't collected by the 'tax fairy'.
2) you heard me.
3) typical liberal - the word cost is so meaningless you don't even see it. :)
4) then you dislike corporate taxes.

snip

And the relevant point of this entirely unrelated rant of quotations would be....?

1) Taxes aren't collected by the 'tax fairy'.
I mail my taxes in, actually, I file them electronically. And no, taxes are not personally collected by an agent of the government.

2) you heard me.
I meant your gibberish statement made no sense.

3) typical liberal - the word cost is so meaningless you don't even see it.Typical neocon, corporations can do no wrong. And let's not even get into how that is the second time you advocated a position that would strip people of their jobs. Also like the typical neocon to not give a shit about other people.

Oversight is an inherent necessity, to advocate its elimination is insane, ignorant, or just plain stupid.

So - given only these choices which would you rather - a tax system based solely on personal income tax or a tax system based solely on corporate income tax?

Neither. Eliminate income taxes and eliminate corporations.

And the relevant point of this entirely unrelated rant of quotations would be....?

2) you heard me.

You heard him.

Unless you stop being a chump I've decided I can't handle your ignorant and inhumane beliefs, so I am going to follow you in every thread I decide to bother with and point out your inanity and uselessness. Have a nice day.

I mail my taxes in, actually, I file them electronically. And no, taxes are not personally collected by an agent of the government.
The servers and bandwidth of a couple hundred million people's taxes have to be dealt with, all paperwork has to be filed, audits have to be performed etc. That takes money and man power. Reducing the number of payers reduces these demands.
In 2006 the IRS' budget was something like $10 billion.

Of course, if you tried to run a country of Corporate taxation the whole place would be bankrupt in a year. Corporations have a lot of money, and that buys them a lot of tax attorneys.

And now you've added a horrible poll.

You had the option of 10 choices. Instead you stuck with two.

Poll Options
Please read post 1 first:
Eliminate corporate taxes and increase personal income taxes
Eliminate personal income taxes and increase corporate taxes

I'll take option three, and eliminate both.

I will take option 4 and say your poll is ass.

I mail my taxes in, actually, I file them electronically. And no, taxes are not personally collected by an agent of the government.

Right, no one comes to collect your taxes, they force you through threat of violence and imprisonment to keep track of your own finances, report all of it to the government, and to do it promptly.

When you start paying taxes, just don't file, and see if someone comes to collect.

Typical neocon, corporations can do no wrong.

Asinine and insulting strawman.

And let's not even get into how that is the second time you advocated a position that would strip people of their jobs.

The only people losing jobs will be state tax collectors and assessors, and we are better for it.

Also like the typical neocon to not give a shit about other people.

Asinine and insulting strawman #2.

Oversight is an inherent necessity, to advocate its elimination is insane, ignorant, or just plain stupid.

Address the original point about cost and cease making beside the point (as well as utterly wrong) unbased assertions, or admit that you have no frame of reference.

The servers and bandwidth of a couple hundred million people's taxes have to be dealt with, all paperwork has to be filed, audits have to be performed etc. That takes money and man power. Reducing the number of payers reduces these demands.
People have to have jobs.

In 2006 the IRS' budget was something like $10 billion.
You would have a fit if I told you what the military's disposable budget is.

And the relevant point of this entirely unrelated rant of quotations would be....?


entirely unrelated?
no. not at all.

that we should not "free corporations from government oppression".
ha ha ha

Asinine and insulting strawman.
I don't see you attacking his "asinine and insulting strawman" which was the reason for me saying that. Double standard much?

Address the original point about cost and cease making beside the point (as well as utterly wrong) unbased assertions, or admit that you have no frame of reference.
Hmmm, no. There are times when costs are justified.

ill take option 5 and keep both

I mail my taxes in, actually, I file them electronically. And no, taxes are not personally collected by an agent of the government.

There are no tax collectors? No auditors? The IRS is simply a set of binary code? LOL. You really DO believe in the tax fairy!


I meant your gibberish statement made no sense.
Then you should try drawing a diagram.

Typical neocon, corporations can do no wrong. And let's not even get into how that is the second time you advocated a position that would strip people of their jobs. Also like the typical neocon to not give a shit about other people.
LOL? I never once said corporations could do no wrong nor did I say anything about stripping jobs. I give you an F in reading comprehension but an A in creative writing.

Oversight is an inherent necessity, to advocate its elimination is insane, ignorant, or just plain stupid.
Who said anything about eliminating oversight? Besides - what oversight? you already explained that the tax fairies do all that!

entirely unrelated?
no. not at all.

that we should not "free corporations from government oppression".
ha ha ha

So you are saying that taxes are a form of oppression? That does not seem consistent with your original post.

ill take option 5 and keep both

So you like regressive AND progressive taxation?

You heard him.

Unless you stop being a chump I've decided I can't handle your ignorant and inhumane beliefs, so I am going to follow you in every thread I decide to bother with and point out your inanity and uselessness. Have a nice day.

Please refrain.

Neither. Eliminate income taxes and eliminate corporations.

Interesting choice - tell me what would operate your ideal socio-economic model?

I don't see you attacking his "asinine and insulting strawman" which was the reason for me saying that. Double standard much?

The most important word of point 3 was "cost" and you completely ignored it.

His was not a strawman, liberals often ignore the costs and thereby price increases their economic wrangling creates.

Hmmm, no. There are times when costs are justified.

But not all costs are justified, so your point is irrelevant.

People have to have jobs.
No they don't - and I certainly don't have to give anyone a job just for the sake of it.


You would have a fit if I told you what the military's disposable budget is.

About half of what is spent on public education and roughly 2/3rd what is spent on healthcare in the US...

Interesting choice - tell me what would operate your ideal socio-economic model?

Actually not too terribly different from what we see in modern industrial states.
income taxes to be replaced with various other sorces that are fairer, and corporationtions to be denied limited liability in both financial and criminal affairs.

We'll see fewer cases of corporate homocide (which isn't really even a crime now) if we start holding stockholders criminally responaible for running a homocidal company.

Actually not too terribly different from what we see in modern industrial states.
income taxes to be replaced with various other sorces that are fairer, and corporationtions to be denied limited liability in both financial and criminal affairs.

We'll see fewer cases of corporate homocide (which isn't really even a crime now) if we start holding stockholders criminally responaible for running a homocidal company.

I see - so, say if a toy manufacturer is found liable in a death resulting from a design flaw in their toy you feel everyone with shares in that company - be they the actual designer of the toy or the phone operator who owns 3 shares of the company in her 401k should be held equally responsible. Right?

Also, what sort of taxes do you consider more fair than income tax?

So you like regressive AND progressive taxation?

any change in the tax code that removes taxes on one group needs to be made up somehow. obviously you cant put all income tax on corporations and keep business alive in this country but to eliminate tax on corporations requires that tax on individuals be raised.

so i think it should remain the same. if corporations are "persons" they need to pay income tax. not all taxes, just their fair share.

LOL? I never once said corporations could do no wrong nor did I say anything about stripping jobs. I give you an F in reading comprehension but an A in creative writing.
You already admitted that people work on taxes, what job do you propose they have when we do away with the tax infrastructure like you propose? Just because you are 15 and Republican doesn't make you right, in fact it probably makes you less so.

I don't think that either tax should be eliminated. Coroprations could certainly use to pay more of them though.

And the relevant point of this entirely unrelated rant of quotations would be....?

The relevance is that quite of few people who founded and guided America over the years, and who assisted in the creation of this country seem to agree that your opinion isn't worth the manure it sprung forth from.

No they don't - and I certainly don't have to give anyone a job just for the sake of it.
Attention everyone: Round up your children and prepare to sell them off as indentured servants so you can eat because when Skeptic is in charge, there will be no jobs because they are all frivolous wastes of money. No jobs in taxes, education, or health services.



About half of what is spent on public education and roughly 2/3rd what is spent on healthcare in the US...
I would love to know how you figured that.

entirely unrelated?
no. not at all.

that we should not "free corporations from government oppression".
ha ha ha

Exactly, Corporations are not people, they have no rights... At least they shouldn't... Rights are reserved to humans, not intangible legal entities.

We should simply switch to a consumption tax and eliminate personal/corporate income taxes altogether. When combined with a personal tax credit for low income families, it would eliminate many of the loopholes and bureaucracy associated with the current tax structure.

Interesting fact: Sweden has a lower effective corporate tax rate than the US, due primarily to the fact that their system is much, much more efficient, which means companies get more in return for their taxes compared to the US. The US actually has one of the highest rates in the world for corporate taxes due to the sheer bureaucracy and low return on the paid taxes.

It's alright the way it is now tbh.

Corporations set their prices based on the costs of production - including materials, labor and taxes. Every time one of these goes up the cost of goods will also increase. So - corporate income taxes affect the poor to a greater degree than the wealthy - they are regressive.

This is not true. Corporations do not base their prices on the cost of production. The cost of production does establish a price floor, but to has very little effect otherwise.

When Nike shipped all its production overseas, there was no corresponding decline in prices. Prices will remain as high as people will pay. If taxes on corporations go up incrementally prices will remain unaffected (unless the hike were extreme) because if it was profitable to raise prices, they would have already done it. Just take a look at all the tax breaks that oil companies get that have nothing to bring down the price.

When the oil execs are asked about passing savings on to the consumer they reply "our responsibility is to our shareholders."

I see - so, say if a toy manufacturer is found liable in a death resulting from a design flaw in their toy you feel everyone with shares in that company - be they the actual designer of the toy or the phone operator who owns 3 shares of the company in her 401k should be held equally responsible. Right?
Actually, it would make people think twice before they invest in a certain company so you would end up with people refusing to invest in unethical companies in favour of more ethical ones that are less likely to get them in trouble down the line. It would probably also create a number of new laws to get companies to let their potential investors know what kind of company they are potentially investing in.

When the oil execs are asked about passing savings on to the consumer they reply "our responsibility is to our shareholders."

Oil companies can't really pass savings on to the consumer; even if they wanted to, since the price of their product is set by the market rather than the company itself. All they do is produce oil and sell it to traders, who then resell it to refineries, which then resell it to other traders, who sell it to retailers. Mind you, there may be more steps than this, but ultimately oil prices are set by the market.

Actually, come to think of it, pricing their products under the market price might even be illegal. I think that's exactly what Standard Oil did back in the 19th century and was penalized for it, and it's also what motivated the formation of OPEC in the 1960's back when oil prices were generally set by the companies.

People have to have jobs.
IRS agents aren't like factory and mine workers who have no other marketable skills (and even then, firing a bit of dead weight is no reason to oppose progress and reform). I'm sure that many of them possess sufficient academic qualifications to pursue employment elsewhere.
You would have a fit if I told you what the military's disposable budget is.
So because we waste money in one area we have to waste money in every other area as well?

Pantless, I think you need a vacation. Of late your trolling has just been fucking weak, and it is kind of sad to see.

Actually, it would make people think twice before they invest in a certain company so you would end up with people refusing to invest in unethical companies in favour of more ethical ones that are less likely to get them in trouble down the line. It would probably also create a number of new laws to get companies to let their potential investors know what kind of company they are potentially investing in.

You mean ethics > money? No… this… this cannot be! ;)

Actually, come to think of it, pricing their products under the market price might even be illegal. I think that's exactly what Standard Oil did back in the 19th century and was penalized for it, and it's also what motivated the formation of OPEC in the 1960's back when oil prices were generally set by the companies.Undercutting the market isn't illegal. To make such a practice illegal would be the height of stupidity. What is illegal is undercutting where you face competition, but price gouging where you face none. Which is what Standard Oil did.

Undercutting the market isn't illegal. To make such a practice illegal would be the height of stupidity. What is illegal is undercutting where you face competition, but price gouging where you face none. Which is what Standard Oil did.

Then the first point is the case. They can't alter their prices because the price for their product is set by the market. The only way prices will change is if the supply balance of the given product on the market changes.

Undercutting the market isn't illegal. To make such a practice illegal would be the height of stupidity. What is illegal is undercutting where you face competition, but price gouging where you face none. Which is what Standard Oil did.

The fact that there are laws that make it illegal to undercut where you face competition; is the ultimate proof of how much the government is controlled by big oil.

The fact that there are laws that make it illegal to undercut where you face competition; is the ultimate proof of how much the government is controlled by big oil.That isn't what I said. Standard Oil was prosecuted under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Which makes it illegal to restrain trade or engage in practices for the purposes of creating a monopoly.

Standard Oil was selling at a loss, but sustaining these losses with huge profits from areas where they were price gouging. You really should be able to understand why such practices are illegal.

Whatever the Irish do.

Actually, it would make people think twice before they invest in a certain company so you would end up with people refusing to invest in unethical companies in favour of more ethical ones that are less likely to get them in trouble down the line. It would probably also create a number of new laws to get companies to let their potential investors know what kind of company they are potentially investing in.

This assumes that the designer intentionally put a flaw in the design and let the shareholders know that their corporation was "unethical". If a corporation is known to be illegal, then the corporation is already being forced to fix that problem, so shareholders are not helping a company partake in illegal practices if it is already known that they have been.

This is not true. Corporations do not base their prices on the cost of production. The cost of production does establish a price floor, but to has very little effect otherwise.

When Nike shipped all its production overseas, there was no corresponding decline in prices. Prices will remain as high as people will pay. If taxes on corporations go up incrementally prices will remain unaffected (unless the hike were extreme) because if it was profitable to raise prices, they would have already done it. Just take a look at all the tax breaks that oil companies get that have nothing to bring down the price.

When the oil execs are asked about passing savings on to the consumer they reply "our responsibility is to our shareholders."
You are slightly correct with your denial. A company does use something called the Cost of Sales to figure a price. That includes production and a lot of other things - commissions to salesmen, etc. But the company also has to include its operating costs in that price. These aren't strictly related to the COS, but include things like benefits, utility bills, rents -- and taxes. The result is an amount that is tacked onto the COS before the profit is computed. So you see, taxes are calculated into every price of every item and raising taxes can only raise prices. Companies do not pay income taxes, only people do. Directly or indirectly, it's people, not companies.

So just drop the taxes, remove the cost for compliance with the tax code, and you'll see a remarkable drop in prices -- about 23% by most educated estimates.

Actually, it would make people think twice before they invest in a certain company so you would end up with people refusing to invest in unethical companies in favour of more ethical ones that are less likely to get them in trouble down the line. It would probably also create a number of new laws to get companies to let their potential investors know what kind of company they are potentially investing in.

I'm going out on a limb and making a guess that you've never heard of Congressmen Sarbanes and Oxley. You and many others need to read about the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act) before you start making sweeping statements about the lack of corporate accountability. The super-short executive summary is that Enron and Worldcomm have made life far more difficult than it ever was before. Accounting departments have to be virtually perfect. I sincerely doubt we need any more laws governing the operation of corporations. My only hope is that this S-O nonsense expires at some point in the future.

I'm going out on a limb and making a guess that you've never heard of Congressmen Sarbanes and Oxley. You and many others need to read about the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act) before you start making sweeping statements about the lack of corporate accountability. The super-short executive summary is that Enron and Worldcomm have made life far more difficult than it ever was before. Accounting departments have to be virtually perfect. I sincerely doubt we need any more laws governing the operation of corporations. My only hope is that this S-O nonsense expires at some point in the future.

Yeah, I did some research on that a few months back. There actually is quite a bit of oversight nowadays. More than you'd expect.

Yeah, I did some research on that a few months back. There actually is quite a bit of oversight nowadays. More than you'd expect.

Try to live with it every damn day. I have the CFO, comptroller, and GM yelling at me if one of my engineers is a day late with a time card.

It's all about process -- and a deviation from what's required, a missed time card in this case, is extrapolated over the whole company. So, where we may only miss a single event, the extrapolated value might end up being 10s or 100s of events, regardless if that's true or not.

I'm going out on a limb and making a guess that you've never heard of Congressmen Sarbanes and Oxley. You and many others need to read about the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act) before you start making sweeping statements about the lack of corporate accountability. The super-short executive summary is that Enron and Worldcomm have made life far more difficult than it ever was before. Accounting departments have to be virtually perfect. I sincerely doubt we need any more laws governing the operation of corporations. My only hope is that this S-O nonsense expires at some point in the future.
*does not live in the US*
*does not pay attention to every little thing that happens in the US*
*is aware that the world does not revolve around american businesses*

And really, coroprations should be accountable. They should also be required to operate ethically and responsably even if it makes their shareholders slightly less money.

Try to live with it every damn day. I have the CFO, comptroller, and GM yelling at me if one of my engineers is a day late with a time card.

It's all about process -- and a deviation from what's required, a missed time card in this case, is extrapolated over the whole company. So, where we may only miss a single event, the extrapolated value might end up being 10s or 100s of events, regardless if that's true or not.

That sounds like a monumental pain in the ass. I'm glad we don't have that problem at my level, or things would never get done. Hell, I have to backdate half my time sheets because my prof is never around.

*is aware that the world does not revolve around american businesses*.

Actually, it kinda does.

That sounds like a monumental pain in the ass. I'm glad we don't have that problem at my level, or things would never get done. Hell, I have to backdate half my time sheets because my prof is never around.
Stay away from public companies...

Actually, it kinda does.
Oh, silly me, I forgot that despite the fact that there are many countries which each have their own economies, there's only one that matters. I also forgot that there really isn't any more to life than money.

Oh right, what was I thinking?

Oh, silly me, I forgot that despite the fact that there are many countries which each have their own economies, there's only one that matters. I also forgot that there really isn't any more to life than money.

Oh right, what was I thinking?
Just as our solar system revolves around one Sun, the World's economy revolves around the United States. Like it or not. That doesn't mean that one Sun is the only one that matters, just that it's at the center. Ditto for the American economy.

Just as our solar system revolves around one Sun, the World's economy revolves around the United States. Like it or not. That doesn't mean that one Sun is the only one that matters, just that it's at the center. Ditto for the American economy.
I really don't think this is the case.

And the only thing in this solar system other than the Sun that is actually significant is Jupiter.

I really don't think this is the case.

And the only thing in this solar system other than the Sun that is actually significant is Jupiter.
Wrong again. Jupiter is not populated --- as far as we know. I'd say a planet that supports life is far more significant.

But then, I didn't realize you might be a human apologist. Although, I'm not sure who you'd apologize to.

Anyway, it might have been a bad analogy -- sometimes cocktail hour does that to me.

Oh, silly me, I forgot that despite the fact that there are many countries which each have their own economies, there's only one that matters. I also forgot that there really isn't any more to life than money.

Every economy in the world is dependent on the United States, even if they have their own domestic markets and companies. As the world's biggest importer, we influence the rest of the world even more than they influence us, and a decline in our economy will be felt the world over. And, lastly, US companies and financial markets are the primary source of capital and investment around the world.

I'm not arguing the merits of this, or whether it's a good thing, I'm just stating the truth.

Stay away from public companies...

If all goes well, there's a significant possibility that I'll be "stuck" in academia.

Though I'm unaware what the market demand for a fellow with a Physics B.S. is.

Corporations set their prices based on the costs of production - including materials, labor and taxes. Every time one of these goes up the cost of goods will also increase. So - corporate income taxes affect the poor to a greater degree than the wealthy - they are regressive.

A corporation that raises prices, while people aren't getting any richer, are going to be selling less. Thus, they will not do it unless they are forced to by a cost of production exceeding the income from selling. Even if they do raise prices, they're not going to be earning more, workers are not going to be earning less and in any case, only income is taxed for corporations iirc, so for any corporation running a deficit, it doesn't matter.

A corporation that gets a tax cut is going to keep that money for themselves. Price on goods is not going to fall and a disparity between rich and poor will be accentuated by the fact that shareholders get the money and the workers get screwed.

So, if you reduce income tax, but increase tax on corporation, you are actually employing more of a progressive tax than you think.

Most corporations reliant on a lot of manpower (factory, some types of agriculture, etc...) will be able to pay their workers less and yet the workers will be able to still earn more money than they did before. In return, the corporation becomes easier to run and earns more in profit, which it then pays off. Corporations reliant on little manpower will suffer, unless they have the high income tax brackets working for them, in which case they will also benefit, but any benefit they get from being able to sell goods more expensively is lost to corporation tax and any benefit they get from being able to produce goods more efficiently isn't lost.

Essentially, if you eliminate income tax and create an effective corporation tax, then that would be far better than eliminating corporation tax.

The major problem I do see, however, is independents - do they count as income or corporation?

Or we could prohibit price increases because of taxes and force the money-grubbing millionaires to lose part of their paycheck.

If all goes well, there's a significant possibility that I'll be "stuck" in academia.

Though I'm unaware what the market demand for a fellow with a Physics B.S. is.
Tough to say. We've hired a couple grads to work in controls and also in RF. One's been with the company for at least 35 years, the other retired and now consults. I think we have another couple Physics grads writing software.

Places like GTRI, Lincoln Labs, etc are great places to work. You stay on the faculty, but you get to work on some pretty fun real-world stuff.

A corporation that gets a tax cut is going to keep that money for themselves. Price on goods is not going to fall and a disparity between rich and poor will be accentuated by the fact that shareholders get the money and the workers get screwed.

There is no reason to believe this, except for ignorance. Companies are always trying to reduce costs to compete with other companies. If they are able to reduce their tax burden, that's a savings that they can use to compete with. The company that can get a tax cut Will reduce it's prices on products because the overhead is reduced.

I know real life violates the dogma that you want to believe, but communist dogma is crap.

Or we could prohibit price increases because of taxes and force the money-grubbing millionaires to lose part of their paycheck.

Sure, just go find an instance of price freezes that didn't create shortages...Try the oil crisis in the '70s for starters.

I see - so, say if a toy manufacturer is found liable in a death resulting from a design flaw in their toy you feel everyone with shares in that company - be they the actual designer of the toy or the phone operator who owns 3 shares of the company in her 401k should be held equally responsible. Right?

Yes, almost. There should be a shared responsibility, maybe not in equal amounts, but certainly shared.

Also, what sort of taxes do you consider more fair than income tax?

A mix of an assortment of non-income taxes and user fees.

Wrong again. Jupiter is not populated --- as far as we know. I'd say a planet that supports life is far more significant.

But then, I didn't realize you might be a human apologist. Although, I'm not sure who you'd apologize to.
As someone who tends to think more of the big picture, life is insignificant. I'm not saying it's bad or anything, but it really is. Furthermore, if not for Jupiter's presence in our solar system it is unlikely that life would have arisen on this planet since Jupiter tends to deflect things that would come in and pummel the planet.

Anyway, it might have been a bad analogy -- sometimes cocktail hour does that to me.
And yeah, it was a bad analogy, especially since you didn't even include the fact that Jupiter makes the sun wobble.

Every economy in the world is dependent on the United States, even if they have their own domestic markets and companies. As the world's biggest importer, we influence the rest of the world even more than they influence us, and a decline in our economy will be felt the world over. And, lastly, US companies and financial markets are the primary source of capital and investment around the world.

I'm not arguing the merits of this, or whether it's a good thing, I'm just stating the truth.
And I'm just saying that money isn't the most important thing in the world so entities that exist solely for the purpose of making money aren't the most important things in it.

Yes, almost. There should be a shared responsibility, maybe not in equal amounts, but certainly shared.

I'm interested in what you mean by a shared responsbility. In the case given (a company producing a harmful product) I assume you are talking about shared responsibility in the form of shareholders having to contribute to the costs arising from the civil litigation rather than shared punishment by having the case go through a criminal court. In a way, the shareholders already do pay for such incidents, in that the reduced profits arising from fines or settlements from such cases will reduce the company's profits and the shareholder's dividends.

As for tax systems, I support low - preferably no - corporation tax, but higher indirect tax.

There is no reason to believe this, except for ignorance. Companies are always trying to reduce costs to compete with other companies. If they are able to reduce their tax burden, that's a savings that they can use to compete with. The company that can get a tax cut Will reduce it's prices on products because the overhead is reduced.

I know real life violates the dogma that you want to believe, but communist dogma is crap.

Communist dogma?

That was capitalist dogma I spewed out.

Also, please explain why the hell you would lower the price on your goods if you got a tax cut?

What you fail to realize is that a tax cut on income taxes benefits companies as much as individuals.

It wasn't supposed to make sense anyway, but neither do you, so...

Communist dogma?Also, please explain why the hell you would lower the price on your goods if you got a tax cut?

A couple of reasons - if the firm is seeking to increase its market share, a drop in taxes would allow them to drop the price thus selling more units while making the same profit as before the tax cut.

Alternatively, less scrupulous managers who have their bonus based on sales revenue rather than profits may use the drop in fixed costs to increase the sales and their bonus without risking the profit of the firm. Of course, this only applies in larger firms where ownership and control are seperate and badly regulated.

But a profit maximising firm would be unlikely to lower prices in the event of a tax cut - rather it would either result in more money for the shareholders or reinvestment.

I'm interested in what you mean by a shared responsbility. In the case given (a company producing a harmful product) I assume you are talking about shared responsibility in the form of shareholders having to contribute to the costs arising from the civil litigation rather than shared punishment by having the case go through a criminal court. In a way, the shareholders already do pay for such incidents, in that the reduced profits arising from fines or settlements from such cases will reduce the company's profits and the shareholder's dividends.


If they own a business that produces a product that kills, then they are ultimately reponsible and should be held so criminally, just as anyone eles whose actions result in harm.

Then you should try drawing a diagram.

If you can't express your idea clearly in writing, maybe you should try drawing a diagram. I don't care enough about what you 'think' to go to the effort.

So you are saying that taxes are a form of oppression? That does not seem consistent with your original post.

Look at the quotation marks. I give you an F in reading comprehension but maybe a C in creative writing.

This is not true. Corporations do not base their prices on the cost of production. The cost of production does establish a price floor, but to has very little effect otherwise.

When Nike shipped all its production overseas, there was no corresponding decline in prices. Prices will remain as high as people will pay. If taxes on corporations go up incrementally prices will remain unaffected (unless the hike were extreme) because if it was profitable to raise prices, they would have already done it. Just take a look at all the tax breaks that oil companies get that have nothing to bring down the price.

When the oil execs are asked about passing savings on to the consumer they reply "our responsibility is to our shareholders."

Exactly. Look up, "supply and demand," in a macroecon textbook. Usually taxes are assumed to shift the supply curve upward in price by the amount of the tax. Depending on the elasticity of demand, this could result in a commensurate increase in price with no decrease in volume or an insignificant increase in price coupled with a decrease in volume. meh...
As Domici says, though, a major decrease in cost to make shoes didn't change prices on the market at all. The marginal cost of shoes is so low even with a tax increase that it could cost more in lost sales to increase price than to eat the tax.

Actually, it would make people think twice before they invest in a certain company so you would end up with people refusing to invest in unethical companies in favour of more ethical ones that are less likely to get them in trouble down the line. It would probably also create a number of new laws to get companies to let their potential investors know what kind of company they are potentially investing in.

This is why I don't invest heavily in the crack cocaine industry in spite of the terriffic dividends.

I'm going out on a limb and making a guess that you've never heard of Congressmen Sarbanes and Oxley. You and many others need to read about the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act) before you start making sweeping statements about the lack of corporate accountability. The super-short executive summary is that Enron and Worldcomm have made life far more difficult than it ever was before. Accounting departments have to be virtually perfect. I sincerely doubt we need any more laws governing the operation of corporations. My only hope is that this S-O nonsense expires at some point in the future.

Yeah. Somehow, Congress didn't care so much when corporate corruption was only hurting employees and consumers. When investors started getting hosed, "Oh noes! Time for action!" 'Cause, you know, a lot of investors are rich. Gotta take care of that, "Natural Aristocracy.":mad:

If all goes well, there's a significant possibility that I'll be "stuck" in academia.

I hate you, you lucky bastard.;)

I refuse to answer this poll, I choose "eliminate all taxes".


The only taxes I think that have a right to exsist are a sales tax and possibly a flat-tax. That is the true essence of equality.

10% for a janitor is alot differant then 10% for a lawyer.

And both are suseptable to the taxing of consumer goods, it all depends on thier spending habits.

The third paragraph contradicts the second paragraph.

A couple of reasons - if the firm is seeking to increase its market share, a drop in taxes would allow them to drop the price thus selling more units while making the same profit as before the tax cut.

Alternatively, less scrupulous managers who have their bonus based on sales revenue rather than profits may use the drop in fixed costs to increase the sales and their bonus without risking the profit of the firm. Of course, this only applies in larger firms where ownership and control are seperate and badly regulated.

But a profit maximising firm would be unlikely to lower prices in the event of a tax cut - rather it would either result in more money for the shareholders or reinvestment.

If a company is close to a monopoly, prices may increase even with a tax decrease(eg oil). If a company is trying to create a monopoly, prices may stay low, or even decrease, in spite of a tax increase.

Also, not sure if the managers you speak of need to be unscrupulous in terms of, "corporate ethics." And most large corporations have widely separated control and ownership.

I ain't voting on this one, because both options are bad. I would vote for decreased tax on WORK income and increased tax on income from INVESTMENT.

Corporate taxes can go hang. I don't give a flying barrel of monkeys.

Exactly, a corporation is going to set the price limit on the limit the consumers would purchase a good at... If the people are already paying at that limit, the corporation will not hike the price higher... But if production or taxes are lowered, the corporation tends to keep the consumers paying at the previous level (because they are used to it); and pocketing that added profit.

Reganomics was proven to not work.

Exactly, a corporation is going to set the price limit on the limit the consumers would purchase a good at... If the people are already paying at that limit, the corporation will not hike the price higher... But if production or taxes are lowered, the corporation tends to keep the consumers paying at the previous level (because they are used to it); and pocketing that added profit.

Which can be a good thing because corporations tend to invest their money more efficiently and with significantly less waste than the government, producing a bigger economic dividend for the same cost. Mind you, this doesn't mean supply-side economics in and of themselves are a good idea, just that if government can afford to cut taxes, it should, because it will produce a significant benefit for the economy.

I'm personally of the opinion that all new spending should be funded by higher taxes and all surpluses refunded in the form of tax cuts.

Exactly, a corporation is going to set the price limit on the limit the consumers would purchase a good at... If the people are already paying at that limit, the corporation will not hike the price higher... But if production or taxes are lowered, the corporation tends to keep the consumers paying at the previous level (because they are used to it); and pocketing that added profit.

Reganomics was proven to not work.

In fact if personal taxes were eliminated and corporate taxes were increased commensurately, corps could make higher profits without raising prices.

In fact if personal taxes were eliminated and corporate taxes were increased commensurately, corps could make higher profits without raising prices.

Exactly.... People would more likely be willing to PAY MORE for a product, or if nothing else, BUY MORE of said product... (Let's not even mention the fact that those on the boards of these corps would no longer be paying tax on THEIR income like the rest of us).

The US was built initially to be funded by taxes upon those other than it's citizens; and I have no problem with going back to a similar model as that.

In fact if personal taxes were eliminated and corporate taxes were increased commensurately, corps could make higher profits without raising prices.

It would definitely be much more significant than cutting corporate taxes, but I do not think it would be possible to make up the income tax gap with corporate taxes. I would personally focus on cutting income taxes first and then cut corporate taxes.

If they own a business that produces a product that kills, then they are ultimately reponsible and should be held so criminally, just as anyone eles whose actions result in harm.

I still don't understand how you would implement this. To criminally prosecute all owners of the firm because it made a product which resulted in the death of someone, or some people, you would need to bring a prosecution against potentially hundreds of people if the corporation was large, including the firms staff, suppliers and various investment trusts and pension funds who hold shares in the business regardless of their involvement with the actual manufacture of the product. I think a line needs to be drawn between the owners of the business and the decision makers - the managers and executives who agreed to sell the product. Of course, any criminal action would need to show that the managers knew the product was unsafe before selling it too.

Also, not sure if the managers you speak of need to be unscrupulous in terms of, "corporate ethics." And most large corporations have widely separated control and ownership.

Only unscrupulous in the sense that they are making money for themselves at the expense of the owners, when the owners hired them to do just the opposite.

I'm personally of the opinion that all new spending should be funded by higher taxes and all surpluses refunded in the form of tax cuts.

You don't think that governments should put at least some of the surplus into a rainy day fund so that if some economic disaster strikes it doesn't need to raise taxes to pay for increased spending? Shouldn't governments try to avoid pulling a Herbert Hoover?

Eliminate both and replace them with consumption taxes. This grants most of the benefits of both of your suggestions.

Eliminating only one while increasing the other will create an incentive to hoard money in the unit (person or corporation) that is less heavily taxed.

If you eliminate corporate taxes, each person would incorporate and have all savings accrued by the corporation. All goods would be acquired by the corporation, and the person would earn very little actual money, though he would still benefit from it.

If you eliminate personal income taxes and replace them with high corporate taxes, corporate boards would swell to include vastly more shareholders and they would pay themslves enormous salaries to reduce the profits of the corporation to zero. If there's no cost to doing it (and with no income taxes there wouldn't be) it's very easy to reduce a company's net profit to zero.

You don't think that governments should put at least some of the surplus into a rainy day fund so that if some economic disaster strikes it doesn't need to raise taxes to pay for increased spending? Shouldn't governments try to avoid pulling a Herbert Hoover?

I would, but the problem is that most of these "rainy day funds" come to mean "loot the hell out of it whenever you need to bribe your constituents" funds. I'd rather give it back to the people, who are definitely going to use it more effectively, than have it squandered by the government.

Mind you, a real rainy day fund would be a good idea for storing some of the surplus. That and paying down the national debt; the money saved off of interest payments could be used to pay off the debt and fill the reserve fund.

And I'm just saying that money isn't the most important thing in the world so entities that exist solely for the purpose of making money aren't the most important things in it.
You're still confusing 'most important' and 'affects greatly'. Facts are that the American economy does indeed affect almost every other economy greatly. Is that effect the most important thing? Sure, if you trade, or depend on trade. If you're just a leftist student in a university, then it probably doesn't matter much to you.

Also, please explain why the hell you would lower the price on your goods if you got a tax cut?

What you fail to realize is that a tax cut on income taxes benefits companies as much as individuals.

It wasn't supposed to make sense anyway, but neither do you, so...

When did you figure out how finance works? Or better, when will you? I did explain why a company would reduce price. It's called competitive advantage. If one can maintain a desirable profit, one will always cut prices when costs are reduced. In fact, all companies are continually seeking ways to cut costs, with lower prices as the primary goal. Maybe a monopoly would be slow to reduce prices with reduced costs, but there aren't many...Not in a capitalist economy.

A couple of reasons - if the firm is seeking to increase its market share, a drop in taxes would allow them to drop the price thus selling more units while making the same profit as before the tax cut.

Alternatively, less scrupulous managers who have their bonus based on sales revenue rather than profits may use the drop in fixed costs to increase the sales and their bonus without risking the profit of the firm. Of course, this only applies in larger firms where ownership and control are seperate and badly regulated.

But a profit maximising firm would be unlikely to lower prices in the event of a tax cut - rather it would either result in more money for the shareholders or reinvestment.
What happens when their competition -- which presumably benefited from the same tax cut -- lowers prices? Who sells the most product, then? Companies can't sit on cost decreases -- they have to pass them along to the consumer in the form of price decreases.

What happens when their competition -- which presumably benefited from the same tax cut -- lowers prices? Who sells the most product, then? Companies can't sit on cost decreases -- they have to pass them along to the consumer in the form of price decreases.

I'm actually going to check this...I'll do a quick check to see if there is a correlation between corporate tax rates and the rate of inflation.

I am not a corporation, but I am a person, so...

I'm actually going to check this...I'll do a quick check to see if there is a correlation between corporate tax rates and the rate of inflation.
I think there are too many factors that influence inflation to isolate tax rates. But think of it on a small scale. We're both in the business of providing similar product. There aren't too many innovations that we can discover that will reduce the COS, but we're always trying to cut costs somehow. If we both get the same tax cut and I lower my price a little bit, people will start to favor my product. You'll have to follow...Maybe you'll cut just a little more off the price. Eventually, we'll reach a new equilibrium where our gross margins are a little smaller because of the tax cuts, but we still make the same profit on each sale.

It has to be that way.

And really, coroprations should be accountable. They should also be required to operate ethically and responsably even if it makes their shareholders slightly less money.

The government only has the power to punish corporations for breaking the law. The government does not, and should not, have any power to make corporations operate ethically, unless such ethics are enshrined in law.

The questions of how ethical corporations should be is an issue that needs to be resolved in the marketplace. People tend to vote with their dollars- vegetarians might not want to invest in or buy products from McDonald's, Christians may not want to invest in or buy products from a company that provides abortion services. The final determination in both those cases should be left to the individual consumers.

I am not a corporation, but I am a person, so...
But if it were more advantageous to be a corporation, you could create one and have it hold all of your assets.

If they own a business that produces a product that kills, then they are ultimately reponsible and should be held so criminally, just as anyone eles whose actions result in harm.

That sounds nice in theory, but it would probably lead to a collapse of every industrialized economy on the planet. Upon passage of such a law, shareholders would dump their stocks in a panic to avoid ending up with criminal or civil liability brought about by, say, their pension fund's investment in GM or Toyota.

Limited liability entities like corporations and LLC's are the basis of our modern economy. Take that away, and our standard of living would go a couple of centuries backwards.

I would, but the problem is that most of these "rainy day funds" come to mean "loot the hell out of it whenever you need to bribe your constituents" funds. I'd rather give it back to the people, who are definitely going to use it more effectively, than have it squandered by the government.

Mind you, a real rainy day fund would be a good idea for storing some of the surplus. That and paying down the national debt; the money saved off of interest payments could be used to pay off the debt and fill the reserve fund.

True, but I think mechanisms can be put in place to limit government abuses with the funds. For example, the Alskan state legislature is required to have super majorities to spend money from the Alaskan Permanent Fund. However I do realize that even in this case abuse still occurs.

So you are saying that taxes are a form of oppression? That does not seem consistent with your original post.


i was joking somewhere in there.
maybe i misplaced it :confused:

? question for OP,

you do mean corporations and not regular businesses, right?


Just trying to be accurate in my response

What happens when their competition -- which presumably benefited from the same tax cut -- lowers prices? Who sells the most product, then? Companies can't sit on cost decreases -- they have to pass them along to the consumer in the form of price decreases.

Of course, if both firms follow the same strategy no benefit is gained by either in attempting to increase their market share. This relies on one firm pursuing them market share goal while another pursues the profit maximising goal. I wasn't suggesting that this was the most likely way that a business would operate, just one of many ways that a business could operate.

? question for OP,

you do mean corporations and not regular businesses, right?


Just trying to be accurate in my response

Well, technically there is no difference.... Small businesses almost always are a "corporation" even if they are not publicly traded. Generally all the "stock" is owned by a couple of people designated as "President" (major holder) and possible "Vice President" (lesser holder) within the legal documentation.

At the risk of introducing facts to the discussion, this study (http://www.aei.org/docLib/20060315_TaxesandWages.pdf) (pdf) concluded:

The results in this paper suggest that corporate tax rates affect wage levels across countries. Higher corporate taxes lead to lower wages. A 1 percent increase in corporate tax rates is associated with nearly a 1 percent drop in wage rates. The intuition for this comes from a simple analysis of the Solow model that reveals that higher capital labor ratios lead to higher wages, by enhancing worker productivity.


But note that the study is by the American Enterprise Institute, who favor free market policies.

Oil companies can't really pass savings on to the consumer; even if they wanted to, since the price of their product is set by the market rather than the company itself. All they do is produce oil and sell it to traders, who then resell it to refineries, which then resell it to other traders, who sell it to retailers. Mind you, there may be more steps than this, but ultimately oil prices are set by the market.

Actually, come to think of it, pricing their products under the market price might even be illegal. I think that's exactly what Standard Oil did back in the 19th century and was penalized for it, and it's also what motivated the formation of OPEC in the 1960's back when oil prices were generally set by the companies.

No. Selling it below cost is illegal, as it is with most things. Selling it below market is not illegal, it just makes them liable to be sued by their shareholders. But the point wasn't that oil companies are assholes. The point was that lowering cost doesn't automatically translate into lower retail prices. They charge whatever will bring them the greatest profit. That's why Nike didn't lower their prices when their labor costs went down to a ridiculous fraction of it's previous level. They knew we still buy them for hundreds of dollars. Why sell them for tens of dollars?

Does Calvin Klein really spend any more on his jeans than Walmart does on theirs?

That sounds nice in theory, but it would probably lead to a collapse of every industrialized economy on the planet. Upon passage of such a law, shareholders would dump their stocks in a panic to avoid ending up with criminal or civil liability brought about by, say, their pension fund's investment in GM or Toyota.

Limited liability entities like corporations and LLC's are the basis of our modern economy. Take that away, and our standard of living would go a couple of centuries backwards.

Just divide the penalty equally among all shares. Not shareholders, shares. If you own 50% of the stock in a corporation that kills someone, you get 12 years 6 months of the 25 year sentence. If you own one one hundreth of one percent (what most shareholders in a large corporation are likely to get) you show up with a bunch of other similar shareholders, spend several hours in line to plead guilty to owning stock in a homicidal company, then go home because your time in line covers the 3 hour prison sentence you have to serve.

Lower both.

Just divide the penalty equally among all shares. Not shareholders, shares. If you own 50% of the stock in a corporation that kills someone, you get 12 years 6 months of the 25 year sentence. If you own one one hundreth of one percent (what most shareholders in a large corporation are likely to get) you show up with a bunch of other similar shareholders, spend several hours in line to plead guilty to owning stock in a homicidal company, then go home because your time in line covers the 3 hour prison sentence you have to serve.

That would still spook the average person from owning shares. A small shareholder can't be expected to keep track of everything that goes on in a corporation, especially a large one like GM, Exxon-Mobil, Siemens etc. How is Joe Investor supposed to know that the new Siemens commuter train car is criminally negligently designed until the thing actually kills people? What you are proposing is creating a very high disincentive for regular people to invest in the stock market. And you might think that pleading guilty in such a case is not a big deal, but even one criminal conviction can end the professional career of a lawyer, doctor, accountant, police officer, teacher etc. In a case where corporation X did something bad, you might end up with literally hundreds of thousands of people with a criminal record, ruined professional lives etc. Is that really an outcome you are looking for?

You're also proposing that larger institutional investors be required to perform extensive due diligence on every product, service and activity of a company they want to invest in, in order to make sure that someone, somewhere, in the company is not doing something untoward. Again, that would create a strong disincentive for Goldman Sachs or CalPers to invest in stocks.

So, if we instituted what you propose, we would have massive economic upheaval, a crippling of our standard of living as capital fled the stock market and it became impossible for corporations to raise money through the IPO process, and potentially hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives ruined through criminal convictions.

That would still spook the average person from owning shares. A small shareholder can't be expected to keep track of everything that goes on in a corporation, especially a large one like GM, Exxon-Mobil, Siemens etc. How is Joe Investor supposed to know that the new Siemens commuter train car is criminally negligently designed until the thing actually kills people? What you are proposing is creating a very high disincentive for regular people to invest in the stock market. And you might think that pleading guilty in such a case is not a big deal, but even one criminal conviction can end the professional career of a lawyer, doctor, accountant, police officer, teacher etc. In a case where corporation X did something bad, you might end up with literally hundreds of thousands of people with a criminal record, ruined professional lives etc. Is that really an outcome you are looking for?

You're also proposing that larger institutional investors be required to perform extensive due diligence on every product, service and activity of a company they want to invest in, in order to make sure that someone, somewhere, in the company is not doing something untoward. Again, that would create a strong disincentive for Goldman Sachs or CalPers to invest in stocks.

So, if we instituted what you propose, we would have massive economic upheaval, a crippling of our standard of living as capital fled the stock market and it became impossible for corporations to raise money through the IPO process, and potentially hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives ruined through criminal convictions.
Companies would flee US stock markets.

But if it were more advantageous to be a corporation, you could create one and have it hold all of your assets.

It doesn't quite work like that - but this is not the place to teach you.

It doesn't quite work like that - but this is not the place to teach you.
Actually, it does, doesn't it? One doesn't need to be a public corporation, but I seem to remember that it was very popular some years ago for the self-employed to do just that.

Yeah, people have been known to work for business under the guise of a self employed contractor rather than an employee in order to take advantage of better tax laws or allow the employer to avoid obligations such as providing health insurance.

Yeah, people have been known to work for business under the guise of a self employed contractor rather than an employee in order to take advantage of better tax laws or allow the employer to avoid obligations such as providing health insurance.
And every contractor/consultant that I've hired gets an hourly rate that is far better than the annual salary that we would pay a direct employee for equivalent work. Everyone wins. Consultant has more disposable income, company has fewer costs associated with employees.

A company should have enough direct employees to support its core business and no more. Any additional employees should be contractors or consultants.

It doesn't quite work like that - but this is not the place to teach you.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it does.

The only tricky bit is whether the company food in the company fridge counts as a taxable benefit.

I'm not suggesting that firms be prevented from hiring consultants and contractors so long as they are in fact being hired for that role. The problem of disguised employment arises when a business hires someone on a commercial contract which only requires them to provide a service yet treats them as an employee by controlling exactly how they carry out that service without having to provide employment rights such as maternity leave. They won't be paid higher rates like most contractors either.

Therfore there are two positions to consider in this thread - Eliminate corporate taxes or eliminate personal taxes; each has its advantages and disadvantages;


Where is the "eliminate income taxes altogether" option?

That's the Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/) option.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it does.

The only tricky bit is whether the company food in the company fridge counts as a taxable benefit.

No, it doesn't. And the food would be taxable to employees unless access to it were part of a non-discriminatory cafeteria plan - in which case it would be partially deductible to the employer depending on several factors.

Here is a very brief and limited primer for you. It'll get you started - but you're on your own from here. Do educate yourself a bit before you spout erroneous information again.

Good luck

http://www.davidjreed.com/Corporate/business_types.htm - business forms

http://www.aicpa.org/pubs/jofa/mar2001/simmons.htm - benefits