Sensible taxation for business

[Doubledareme]

Sensible taxation for business is no taxation for them. Businesses do not pay tax - people do. That is a cold hard fact. When you tax a business those taxers are differed to the people through higher cost products or lower cost employees. It really is nothing more than hiding the actual costs of government from the people that have to actually pay for it.

It still is not totally cut and dry - if a company gives the fat cats at the top a car as a 'benefit' then the value of that benefit should be taxed from that fat cat but as far as taxing company earnings I do not see a point.

In the U.S. a corporation is a (limited) legal person so why wouldn't it pay taxes?

 

[Dale Smith]

Sensible taxation for business is no taxation for them. Businesses do not pay tax - people do. That is a cold hard fact. When you tax a business those taxers are differed to the people through higher cost products or lower cost employees. It really is nothing more than hiding the actual costs of government from the people that have to actually pay for it.

It still is not totally cut and dry - if a company gives the fat cats at the top a car as a 'benefit' then the value of that benefit should be taxed from that fat cat but as far as taxing company earnings I do not see a point.

The love of money is the root of all evil......it doesn't mean that a communist "gubermint" has the responsibility to steal from the labor of others in order to subsidize those that will not provide for themselves.......charity is at the behest of those tht wish to give.....not at the barrel of a gun in order to be compelled to do so......

I'll paraphrase Jesus for you. God or government? God or money? Pick one as you cannot serve both.

◄ Matthew 6:24 ►



"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

You are claiming that the sweat of my labor should be stolen from me.........for the "greater good"....no????

Can you make money in a system that has - no money? Is the phase there is no such thing as a free lunch new to you?

Adam Smith didn't oppose taxes, just certain kinds of taxes. Karl Marx didn't oppose capitalism but he knew it was an early stage of of economic development. Paying for playing is necessary, Slave.

Define "money", dumb ass......I don't need "gubermint" to regulate the exchange of my labor for something that I can use........

If you wish to live in a barter system then you can trade one dozen eggs for six slices of bacon. If it's anything other than that then you need a government. It doesn't exist otherwise. Adam Smith was quite clear on the point, as was Marx, as was Ricardo. If a dollar is just paper then all it's good for is wiping your ass and starting staring a fire with. No U.S.A, Inc. is required.

My labor and bartering of that doesn't necessitate the "gubermint" getting a cut of it......do you agree?

 

[Dale Smith]

Sensible taxation for business is no taxation for them. Businesses do not pay tax - people do. That is a cold hard fact. When you tax a business those taxers are differed to the people through higher cost products or lower cost employees. It really is nothing more than hiding the actual costs of government from the people that have to actually pay for it.

It still is not totally cut and dry - if a company gives the fat cats at the top a car as a 'benefit' then the value of that benefit should be taxed from that fat cat but as far as taxing company earnings I do not see a point.

In the U.S. a corporation is a (limited) legal person so why wouldn't it pay taxes?

I'm no longer a "person"......thus no longer a corporate entity and under admiralty law....does that bother you????

 

[Doubledareme]

Sensible taxation for business is no taxation for them. Businesses do not pay tax - people do. That is a cold hard fact. When you tax a business those taxers are differed to the people through higher cost products or lower cost employees. It really is nothing more than hiding the actual costs of government from the people that have to actually pay for it.

It still is not totally cut and dry - if a company gives the fat cats at the top a car as a 'benefit' then the value of that benefit should be taxed from that fat cat but as far as taxing company earnings I do not see a point.

I'll paraphrase Jesus for you. God or government? God or money? Pick one as you cannot serve both.

◄ Matthew 6:24 ►



"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

You are claiming that the sweat of my labor should be stolen from me.........for the "greater good"....no????

Can you make money in a system that has - no money? Is the phase there is no such thing as a free lunch new to you?

Adam Smith didn't oppose taxes, just certain kinds of taxes. Karl Marx didn't oppose capitalism but he knew it was an early stage of of economic development. Paying for playing is necessary, Slave.

Define "money", dumb ass......I don't need "gubermint" to regulate the exchange of my labor for something that I can use........

If you wish to live in a barter system then you can trade one dozen eggs for six slices of bacon. If it's anything other than that then you need a government. It doesn't exist otherwise. Adam Smith was quite clear on the point, as was Marx, as was Ricardo. If a dollar is just paper then all it's good for is wiping your ass and starting staring a fire with. No U.S.A, Inc. is required.

My labor and bartering of that doesn't necessitate the "gubermint" getting a cut of it......do you agree?

Your labor is worth chicken shit without a government that turns it into something of value (that can later be burned as toilet paper when it is no longer is of value). There is no capitalism, no value, without a government. That is a barter system which you have never experienced. To demand such a thing rejects the real world. In that world you really would be a slave and honestly worth jack shit so be glad.

.

 

[OKTexas]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

I don't think you have thought this through. Smaller upstart businesses usually pay lower wages than the big corporations. If you can find public information on a big corporation and a small one, compare the amount of payroll taxes paid per employee. I think on average it will be the larger corporations paying the most.


.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

Why do you believe that people should be taxed for exchanging their labor for paper scrip that is Federal Reserve notes that are backed by nothing of an intrinsic value?

why are you willing to allow$1.5 Trillion$ to the national debt just so corporations can skate by their tax responsibility ?

USA.INC i.e your beloved "gubermint" is a corporation that has "borrowed" TRILLIONS of dollars from a bank that has no "reserved" and produces currency from nothing but computer keystrokes. 97 percent of all currency is simply digital because every FRN is "borrowed" into existence....

The GOP’s tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to the national debt over the course of a decade, and increase the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio by 5.9 percentage points, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The CBO analysis relied on the Joint Committee of Taxation's finding that the bill would cut revenues by $1.4 trillion, which falls within the level Republicans allowed themselves in their budget resolution. Still, the additional cost of debt servicing would mean that the overall debt would increase by $1.7 trillion.

1.7 TRILLION dollars to the Federal Reserve foreign owned central bank that has no "reserves" and buys up "gubermint" bonds from a checking account that has nothing in it????.........that's great work if you can get it.....and then have the serfs pay interest on "money" that was created out of thin air? Your biggest problem is that you don't have the slightest clue about the nature of the cage......

1.7 TRILLION dollars to the Federal Reserve foreign owned central bank that has no "reserves"

No reserves? LOL!
$2.4 trillion in Treasuries, $1.7 trillion in MBS, $11 billion in gold and they made over $90 billion last year.

You're a special kinda stupid, aren't you?

 

[Doubledareme]

Sensible taxation for business is no taxation for them. Businesses do not pay tax - people do. That is a cold hard fact. When you tax a business those taxers are differed to the people through higher cost products or lower cost employees. It really is nothing more than hiding the actual costs of government from the people that have to actually pay for it.

It still is not totally cut and dry - if a company gives the fat cats at the top a car as a 'benefit' then the value of that benefit should be taxed from that fat cat but as far as taxing company earnings I do not see a point.

In the U.S. a corporation is a (limited) legal person so why wouldn't it pay taxes?

I'm no longer a "person"......thus no longer a corporate entity and under admiralty law....does that bother you????

You are a person because we, as a government, as a a people, define you as a human being and corporations, within limits, as persons. Otherwise you are meat. Without us you exist only to feed what is far beyond you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

So a "large" company with a low profit margin will pay a higher percentage of those profits to the government while a "small" company with a high profit margin will pay a lower percentage of those profits in taxes.

And you think this is a good thing?

 

[Two Thumbs]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

this is, another, punish the successful, idea.

and it's an idea whose time has not come

 

[Two Thumbs]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

So a "large" company with a low profit margin will pay a higher percentage of those profits to the government while a "small" company with a high profit margin will pay a lower percentage of those profits in taxes.

And you think this is a good thing?

his idea will lead to massive automation

no workers no taxes

 

[Skull Pilot]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

this is, another, punish the successful, idea.

and it's an idea whose time has not come

and let's not forget that the government's definition of "small" business is complete bull shit

The Government Definition of Small Business is B.S.

 

[Two Thumbs]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

this is, another, punish the successful, idea.

and it's an idea whose time has not come

and let's not forget that the government's definition of "small" business is complete bull shit

The Government Definition of Small Business is B.S.

wow, that's a bit nuts

I always just assumed 'small' meant less than 100 people.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

this is, another, punish the successful, idea.

and it's an idea whose time has not come

and let's not forget that the government's definition of "small" business is complete bull shit

The Government Definition of Small Business is B.S.

wow, that's a bit nuts

I always just assumed 'small' meant less than 100 people.

Yeah it has always pissed me off that my business with 16 employees is listed as a small business right along with a business with 500 employees.

 

[Two Thumbs]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

this is, another, punish the successful, idea.

and it's an idea whose time has not come

and let's not forget that the government's definition of "small" business is complete bull shit

The Government Definition of Small Business is B.S.

wow, that's a bit nuts

I always just assumed 'small' meant less than 100 people.

Yeah it has always pissed me off that my business with 16 employees is listed as a small business right along with a business with 500 employees.

seems to me 1 or 2 more categories could be added.

since a local restaurant is not the same as a warehouse with 3 shifts running

 

[Skull Pilot]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

this is, another, punish the successful, idea.

and it's an idea whose time has not come

and let's not forget that the government's definition of "small" business is complete bull shit

The Government Definition of Small Business is B.S.

wow, that's a bit nuts

I always just assumed 'small' meant less than 100 people.

Yeah it has always pissed me off that my business with 16 employees is listed as a small business right along with a business with 500 employees.

seems to me 1 or 2 more categories could be added.

since a local restaurant is not the same as a warehouse with 3 shifts running

at least 1 or 2 more.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'd get rid of the loop holes and put the income and corporate tax at around 25% for the big boys.

They deserve it up their ass.

I'd get rid of the loop holes

Which ones? Be specific.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sensible taxation for business is no taxation for them. Businesses do not pay tax - people do. That is a cold hard fact. When you tax a business those taxers are differed to the people through higher cost products or lower cost employees. It really is nothing more than hiding the actual costs of government from the people that have to actually pay for it.

It still is not totally cut and dry - if a company gives the fat cats at the top a car as a 'benefit' then the value of that benefit should be taxed from that fat cat but as far as taxing company earnings I do not see a point.

The love of money is the root of all evil......it doesn't mean that a communist "gubermint" has the responsibility to steal from the labor of others in order to subsidize those that will not provide for themselves.......charity is at the behest of those tht wish to give.....not at the barrel of a gun in order to be compelled to do so......

I'll paraphrase Jesus for you. God or government? God or money? Pick one as you cannot serve both.

◄ Matthew 6:24 ►



"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

You are claiming that the sweat of my labor should be stolen from me.........for the "greater good"....no????

Can you make money in a system that has - no money? Is the phase there is no such thing as a free lunch new to you?

Adam Smith didn't oppose taxes, just certain kinds of taxes. Karl Marx didn't oppose capitalism but he knew it was an early stage of of economic development. Paying for playing is necessary, Slave.

Define "money", dumb ass......I don't need "gubermint" to regulate the exchange of my labor for something that I can use........

If you wish to live in a barter system then you can trade one dozen eggs for six slices of bacon. If it's anything other than that then you need a government. It doesn't exist otherwise. Adam Smith was quite clear on the point, as was Marx, as was Ricardo. If a dollar is just paper then all it's good for is wiping your ass and starting staring a fire with. No U.S.A, Inc. is required.

Never said there did not need to be a government. I said that businesses should not be taxed.

Any more straw men?

 

[FA_Q2]

Sensible taxation for business is no taxation for them. Businesses do not pay tax - people do. That is a cold hard fact. When you tax a business those taxers are differed to the people through higher cost products or lower cost employees. It really is nothing more than hiding the actual costs of government from the people that have to actually pay for it.

It still is not totally cut and dry - if a company gives the fat cats at the top a car as a 'benefit' then the value of that benefit should be taxed from that fat cat but as far as taxing company earnings I do not see a point.

In the U.S. a corporation is a (limited) legal person so why wouldn't it pay taxes?

Because of the reasons I listed.

 

[Doubledareme]

Sensible taxation for business is no taxation for them. Businesses do not pay tax - people do. That is a cold hard fact. When you tax a business those taxers are differed to the people through higher cost products or lower cost employees. It really is nothing more than hiding the actual costs of government from the people that have to actually pay for it.

It still is not totally cut and dry - if a company gives the fat cats at the top a car as a 'benefit' then the value of that benefit should be taxed from that fat cat but as far as taxing company earnings I do not see a point.

In the U.S. a corporation is a (limited) legal person so why wouldn't it pay taxes?

Because of the reasons I listed.

Try to find some reason reasons next time. With taxes one gets civilization.

 

[Doubledareme]

Sensible taxation for business is no taxation for them. Businesses do not pay tax - people do. That is a cold hard fact. When you tax a business those taxers are differed to the people through higher cost products or lower cost employees. It really is nothing more than hiding the actual costs of government from the people that have to actually pay for it.

It still is not totally cut and dry - if a company gives the fat cats at the top a car as a 'benefit' then the value of that benefit should be taxed from that fat cat but as far as taxing company earnings I do not see a point.

I'll paraphrase Jesus for you. God or government? God or money? Pick one as you cannot serve both.

◄ Matthew 6:24 ►



"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

You are claiming that the sweat of my labor should be stolen from me.........for the "greater good"....no????

Can you make money in a system that has - no money? Is the phase there is no such thing as a free lunch new to you?

Adam Smith didn't oppose taxes, just certain kinds of taxes. Karl Marx didn't oppose capitalism but he knew it was an early stage of of economic development. Paying for playing is necessary, Slave.

Define "money", dumb ass......I don't need "gubermint" to regulate the exchange of my labor for something that I can use........

If you wish to live in a barter system then you can trade one dozen eggs for six slices of bacon. If it's anything other than that then you need a government. It doesn't exist otherwise. Adam Smith was quite clear on the point, as was Marx, as was Ricardo. If a dollar is just paper then all it's good for is wiping your ass and starting staring a fire with. No U.S.A, Inc. is required.

Never said there did not need to be a government. I said that businesses should not be taxed.

Any more straw men?

Why should only individuals pay for what benefits them and not businesses? That's irrational.