kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I’m not sure people on this board know how to > read. I don’t care one way or the other if the > loophole is closed. Fine, close it and lower the > corporate income tax rate–I’m fairly certain > that’s what I said in the first place. Hey buddy, I didn’t mention your post other than that “job creating super engine” is a ridiculous phrase. Never did I say anybody was not in favor of closing the loop hole. I merely suggested that closing the loophole could be used to pay for a lower corporate tax rate. Note, I did not say that was what the administration would do, I simply said it could.
“I can bet my CPA qualification that you lack the capacity to understand the difference between tax avoidance and evasion” “These arrangements, while legal - serve the purpose of tax evasion” Uh, isn’t this a contradiction? If two things are different, they are not the same…
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JOE2010 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > kkent Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I’m not sure people on this board know how to > > > read. I don’t care one way or the other if > the > > > loophole is closed. Fine, close it and lower > > the > > > corporate income tax rate–I’m fairly certain > > > that’s what I said in the first place. > > > > > > By the way, it’s not a “scam.” Legal tax > > avoidance > > > is no more a scam than itemized deductions on > > an > > > individual income tax statement. It boggles > the > > > mind that people on a finance board can’t > > > differentiate between tax evasion and tax > > > avoidance. Legal loopholes are the natural > > result > > > of gov’t regulation and legislation that will > > > never be stopped unless the gov’t recognizes > > that > > > it fails at most things it touches. > > > > > > Surely, if you can read and write 99.99% on > this > > board can do it better, you have been a > benchmark > > of sorts in the past. > > > > I am not sure whether you have an idea what you > > are talking about(I can bet my CPA > qualification > > that you lack the capacity to understand the > > difference between tax avoidance and evasion - > > even accountants and lawyers do not, in most > cases > > the decision is upto the courts as the line is > > very thin.) > > > > These arrangements, while legal - serve the > > purpose of tax evasion and should be closed. > > > Once again, JOE2010 personally attacks me without > offering any kind of factually based response. > Surprise surprise. I guess your CPA qualification > didn’t help you understand that if it’s legal, > it’s…umm, legal, and therefore not tax evasion. The tax laws define what a “tax scheme” is for purposes of tax evasion…and it is upto to the courts to determine between the taxpayer and IRS who is right. I am not attacking you, I am simply saying you lack the capacity and experience to comprehend the complexity of these tax “scams”.
Hello Mister Walrus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > “I can bet my CPA qualification that you lack the > capacity to understand the difference between tax > avoidance and evasion” > > “These arrangements, while legal - serve the > purpose of tax evasion” > > Uh, isn’t this a contradiction? If two things are > different, they are not the same… For starters, tax avoidance/minimization is legal. Tax evasion is illegal. What separates the two? A very thin line. The tax act has anti-avoidance provisions (I no longer work in accounting, but they are complex rules dealing with tracing, fraud, CFC and evasions).
JOE2010 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hello Mister Walrus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > “I can bet my CPA qualification that you lack > the > > capacity to understand the difference between > tax > > avoidance and evasion” > > > > “These arrangements, while legal - serve the > > purpose of tax evasion” > > > > Uh, isn’t this a contradiction? If two things > are > > different, they are not the same… > > > For starters, tax avoidance/minimization is legal. > Tax evasion is illegal. What separates the two? A > very thin line. The tax act has anti-avoidance > provisions (I no longer work in accounting, but > they are complex rules dealing with tracing, > fraud, CFC and evasions). Well, apparentely 18,000+ corporations and their high priced lawyers and accountants determined that it is NOT illegal to avoid taxes offshore. But I’m sure you know better than them. Also, I’m sure you are more informed than President Obama who favors closing the loophole. Gee, I didn’t think it took an act of Congress to enforce laws by changing laws. I could have sworn the President was considered the chief law enforcement officer according to the US Constitution and would therefore be free to prosecute tax evaders, such as the ones you assert are on the Cayman Islands.
kkent Wrote: > Right, so asserting that corporations don’t give > an F about the average American worker is not a > “moral” argument. Right. What I meant by that is that they are not “job creating machines” as you put it, they’re out to make a profit with the lowest staff levels they can. I didn’t say there was anything wrong with that, but just wanted to point out that their goal isn’t to create jobs. So it’s not really a “moral” argument…it’s a fact. People are expendable costs to corporations.
Given that corporations employ about 80% of workers in the U.S., I’d say that they are job machines.
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Given that corporations employ about 80% of > workers in the U.S., I’d say that they are job > machines Two things: 1) That 80% number is an interesting stat that I could find with a simple google. Can I have a source? 2) I did not say that corporations do not employ people. That would be a ludicrous claim. My primary point was that “job creating super engines” sounds like something from pokemon. Additionally, “job machines” <> “job creating super engines” in hilarity. I am going to use the phrase. It’s awesome.
Meant to say: “cound not find with a simple google”. Stupid edit button turned off.
kkent is right. These are corporate entities, not people. They will outlast Obama’s administration and many more. You can’t shame them into adopting business (tax) policies that are contrary to their mission: to make and keep as much money as possible. They employ very smart, very creative people who will find a way. Who cares if they incorporate subsidiaries in the Caymans. The majority of their revenues have nothing to do with the US…85% of Seagate’s employees are non-US and they derive 70% of their revenues from overseas markets. The guy from Intel was right; they should’ve incorporated in the Caymans way back when. I’d rather see Coca-Cola or Seagate redeploy that capital into global markets than to see it to go into the coffers of our irresponsible stewards. They’ll just redistribute it according to their liberal agenda and nobody will be be the better for it. The people crying foul are probably the same people who think the government should fund their education, housing, health care, retirement, etc… Resources should go to where they are most efficient and useful. And until the government can learn not to waste billions upon billions of taxpayer money…
eureka Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kkent Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Given that corporations employ about 80% of > > workers in the U.S., I’d say that they are job > > machines > > Two things: > > 1) That 80% number is an interesting stat that I > could find with a simple google. Can I have a > source? > 2) I did not say that corporations do not employ > people. That would be a ludicrous claim. My > primary point was that “job creating super > engines” sounds like something from pokemon. > Additionally, “job machines” <> “job creating > super engines” in hilarity. I am going to use the > phrase. It’s awesome. Right here you can see that firms with 1,000+ employees employ about 95 million of the 115 million person US workforce (2004). Obviously, the overwhelming majority of those companies are corporations. This, of course, excludes, those firms that are likely corporations that employ 500-1,000 people. So this would make my “about” closer to “corporations employ AT LEAST 80% of the U.S. workforce despite comprising about 1% of the total population of firms.” Yep, these evil corporations. http://www.census.gov/epcd/susb/2004/us/US--.HTM
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Right here you can see that firms with 1,000+ > employees employ about 95 million of the 115 > million person US workforce (2004). Obviously, the > overwhelming majority of those companies are > corporations. This, of course, excludes, those > firms that are likely corporations that employ > 500-1,000 people. So this would make my “about” > closer to “corporations employ AT LEAST 80% of the > U.S. workforce despite comprising about 1% of the > total population of firms.” Yep, these evil > corporations. > > http://www.census.gov/epcd/susb/2004/us/US--.HTM Actually, I think you are reading the table incorrectly. It is really confusingly designed and took me a little bit to figure out why the total in Excel was 214 million employees when the total in the table was 115 million. It is because they subtotal for firms with 500 or more and 1000 or more, and they denote this with an indent on the left. So, the actual percent of corporate employees, assuming that firms larger than 1000 employees are corporations is 50,696/115,075 = 44%. If you assume larger than 500 it is 49%. So, those are the facts. No argument here.
That’s a good catch. But still, you take employers that are 100+ employees or more, which would be overwhelmingly incorporated, and you’ve got mid-60% of the workforce. Take into account companies at 50 employees (which you can’t here unfortunately), which are also likely to be incorporated and it’s easily around 75-80%. Or “about” 80%.
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That’s a good catch. But still, you take employers > that are 100+ employees or more, which would be > overwhelmingly incorporated, and you’ve got 73% of > the workforce. Take into account companies at 50 > employees (which you can’t here unfortunately), > which are also likely to be incorporated and it’s > easily around 80%. Or “about” 80%. I was under the impression that in the US, most people worked for small businesses, or is that just politicians talking?
Most new jobs currently are created by small business. I heard something like 60-80%, depending on the year (Chamber of Commerce?).
ceo1975 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kkent Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > That’s a good catch. But still, you take > employers > > that are 100+ employees or more, which would be > > overwhelmingly incorporated, and you’ve got 73% > of > > the workforce. Take into account companies at > 50 > > employees (which you can’t here unfortunately), > > which are also likely to be incorporated and > it’s > > easily around 80%. Or “about” 80%. > > > I was under the impression that in the US, most > people worked for small businesses, or is that > just politicians talking? That’s what the politicians (especially on the right) will say, but their true loyalty lies with those that give them the most money.
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That’s a good catch. But still, you take employers > that are 100+ employees or more, which would be > overwhelmingly incorporated, and you’ve got > mid-60% of the workforce. Take into account > companies at 50 employees (which you can’t here > unfortunately), which are also likely to be > incorporated and it’s easily around 75-80%. Or > “about” 80%. I was not taking issue with anything you said before, but the above is all just pure conjecture. You either heard the 80% number from somewhere and can’t remember where or you made it up. I’m not being offensive, just stating what this looks like. Let’s stick to the facts. I would say that if half work for corporations (as I calculated above) that is plenty to make them a big player in the “job creating super engine”.
JOE2010 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > The tax laws define what a “tax scheme” is for > purposes of tax evasion…and it is upto to the > courts to determine between the taxpayer and IRS > who is right. I am not attacking you, I am simply > saying you lack the capacity and experience to > comprehend the complexity of these tax “scams”. Here is the legal definition of tax evasion: The process whereby a person, through commission of Fraud, unlawfully pays less tax than the law mandates. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tax+Evasion And here’s the definition of a scam a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation What these companies are doing does not constitute tax evasion or a scam. These x1000 companies are configuring themselves to legally take advantage of tax laws. They are not doing so fraudulently therefore its not a scam. They are paying what the law mandates therefore its not tax mandates Even Obama isn’t calling it tax evasion or accusing these companies of fraud. Give it up,
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Instead of calling this a “tax scam”, Obama should > focus on how to win those companies back! The > United States has one of the highest corporate tax > rates in the Western world. When companies pay > higher taxes, they create less jobs. It’s a simple > matter of cash flow. My question to the Democrats > again and again is this: what is your fundamental > problem with corporations creating jobs? If your > problem is legal tax avoidance, then why not > reform the tax laws to BENEFIT the companies that > are job-creating super engines? Your hypocrisy is astonishing. You have no problem cashing your tax-payer funded paychecks from your parasite failed company, but you have a problem with Obama going after tax schemes.
I think you have it wrong. Kkent’s problem isn’t with Obama going after tax schemes, but more so with attacking the root of the problem, which is high taxes that leads to tax schemes in the first place. Kkent u are really hated on AF. I thot finance ppl are suppoed to be right winged. mo34 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kkent Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Instead of calling this a “tax scam”, Obama > should > > focus on how to win those companies back! The > > United States has one of the highest corporate > tax > > rates in the Western world. When companies pay > > higher taxes, they create less jobs. It’s a > simple > > matter of cash flow. My question to the > Democrats > > again and again is this: what is your > fundamental > > problem with corporations creating jobs? If > your > > problem is legal tax avoidance, then why not > > reform the tax laws to BENEFIT the companies > that > > are job-creating super engines? > > Your hypocrisy is astonishing. You have no problem > cashing your tax-payer funded paychecks from your > parasite failed company, but you have a problem > with Obama going after tax schemes.