Corporate taxation

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Inthemiddle, Oct 13, 2011.

  1. Inthemiddle
    Offline

    Inthemiddle BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,354
    Thanks Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +674
    Let's take a given company. We'll call them Biztime.

    Biztime makes a certain amount of money every year. Of course they make more or less based on how well they run their business.

    Biztime's income creates for them a certain tax liability.

    But, Biztime's savvy tax accountants find a variety of tax credits, some of them maybe sounding almost silly on their face. Like a tax credit for a piece of machinery that is essentially a mega sized garbage disposal. Biztime found out about this credit and decided to go ahead and buy one for its employee cafeteria.

    Biztime also realizes that they qualify for additional credits and subsidies simply to help them survive as a business. They decide that even though they don't really need them, they'll claim them anyway, because they qualify according to the rules. And it's all about having as much money as you can, right?

    Biztime is, overall, a very successful company. They have no problem paying their bills, paying their employees, paying their executives, paying out to their share holders. In fact, they are one of the biggest companies in the country. They file their taxes, and reap the benefits of being attentive to the tax code and to all the various things for which they qualify.

    After all this is said and done, I want to know what about this is wrong, or right, and why. What has Biztime done that is unethical, immoral, or whatever other reason that you might think up to insist that they shouldn't have reaped these benefits.
     
  2. Inthemiddle
    Offline

    Inthemiddle BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,354
    Thanks Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +674
    Nobody has anything to say, really?
     
  3. Jarhead
    Offline

    Jarhead Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    20,554
    Thanks Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,286
    the problem with your scenario is you dont look at the benefits created by the tax creidts..and why the tax credits exist.

    Perhaps there was a tax credit on that garbage disposal becuase the makers of the disposal use recycled material to make it.....so the company spent money on it, got the tax credit...but in the end, they still spent more than they saved with the tax credit...and the maker of the unit made money, and their employees are paying income tax, etc.

    Or...

    Section 42...LIHTC....

    Investors would not boild or buy real estate in depressed areas without LIHTC...so when they do it, yes, they save on taxes...but the depressed community has a developer helping their neuighborhood.

    Truth is...tax credits are susually for the better....there are usually good reasons for them...although some are nothing but ways for politicians to look good....but I wont go there right now.
     
  4. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    " But, Biztime's savvy tax accountants find a variety of tax credits, some of them maybe sounding almost silly on their face. Like a tax credit for a piece of machinery that is essentially a mega sized garbage disposal. Biztime found out about this credit and decided to go ahead and buy one for its employee cafeteria. "


    I have a big problem with any business that gets any kind of tax break, subsidy, credit, or anything else from the gov't. That's how we wound up with the most ridiculous tax code in the world, we simply cannot be favoring any one company or industry over the rest. Far as I'm concerned, if you can't make it on your own without any help from the gov't, then you should be out of business and finding something else to do.
     
  5. Inthemiddle
    Offline

    Inthemiddle BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,354
    Thanks Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +674
    I don't think you understand my question. I'm trying to get people to explain why they think any of this is wrong. I'm not saying it's wrong, I want to know why other people might think it's wrong, of if people will agree that it's not wrong after all.
     
  6. OohPooPahDoo
    Offline

    OohPooPahDoo Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    15,342
    Thanks Received:
    976
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    N'Awlins Mid-City
    Ratings:
    +1,320
    Really? So you oppose the Postal Act of 1792? Please explain how newspapers being able to ship copies of their paper to other newspapers postage free isn't a good idea! George Washington thought it was a good idea, you got a problem with Washington? Because he will [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA"]RIP YOU APART[/ame]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2011
  7. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,620
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,215
    Companies are in business to make money. The accountants' job is to minimize their tax liability. Individuals work the same way. Do you think someone who is entitled to a tax credit says "no, I wont take this credit because it would be immoral"? Answer, no.

    The issue is that the tax code allows for this kind of nonsense. Some of it is inevitable. Tax should be on profit, which is sales less expense. What is an expense? Lots of room for debate.
     
  8. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    Hard to rationally respond to something that is entirely hypocthetical.
     
  9. LoneLaugher
    Online

    LoneLaugher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    45,664
    Thanks Received:
    6,458
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Inside Mac's Head
    Ratings:
    +18,464
    Don't you just love it when a rabid nutter rushes to present an opposing argument to a thread OP that supports his well established POV.

    Inthemiddle........ya have to limit your dopey strawman scenerios to 30 words or less if you want the "right" to catch on to your drift.

    And.....seeking a counter-argument from thinking people requires that you present the facts accurately. Nobody here is banging on corporations for taking advantage of intended tax breaks.
     
  10. Inthemiddle
    Offline

    Inthemiddle BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,354
    Thanks Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +674
    Okay, so there's nothing immoral about tax subsidies and corporate welfare? As Rabbi said, nobody entitled to it would say no, right?

    What, then, is the rationale to attach moral valuations against individual welfare and entitlements? If a person on welfare uses that money for drugs, why do we insist that they should be left without the welfare because they obviously have the money to pay for food in the first place? I mean, big oil companies obviously have more than enough money to produce their product, pay their employees, and still make a decent profit. Why is it okay to use taxpayer money to support large and wealthy companies so that they don't have to pay as much of their own expenses and have more money left over for indulgences, but it's immoral to use taxpayer money to support low income people so they can have more money left over for indulgences?
     

Share This Page