More USA political questions

[Robert May Eng.]

We have tax avoidance and tax evasion, one is legal the other will put you in jail. There are numerous legal ways to milk a company of profit and the government seem painfully slow to plug the loopholes. Of course this is nothing to do with most of the MP`s lords etc being directors of companies or industrialists themselves :lipsrsealed:

Bob

Has anyone here noticed that upstairs there is a forum related to building GT40 replica`s ?

 

[Keith]

Jim, I know there has been a lot of water under the bridge but lies is a very strong word, you would get a very strong reprimand from the speaker don’t you know. Misguided and confused possibly but not lies/QUOTE]Posted by Nick.


Nick,

Of course you are right, lies was too strong a word. I have allowed the almost constant stream of one sided threads and posts to get to me. But that said, it was one of those "pot calling the kettle black moments". But then I should be used to it by now.

But if anyone post a statment like this that is perhaps less than accurate........

".....its about parental comoitment, libs want schools to replace parental responsibility, hell they want gov to repalce personal responsibility, wont work".

Either they have a very limited view of the world, have not been paying attention or perhaps just stating things they heard in the "news" but expect to be called on it.

I actually believe there is a danger that the highlighted sentence above may be correct. It happens here in the UK.

 

[Keith]

Bob

Has anyone here noticed that upstairs there is a forum related to building GT40 replica`s ?

Cool, go for it...

 

[Nick]

Maybe we are getting our terms mixed up. Here in the USA public means governement schools, private means you pay.

I knew it was that way around in the US as my wife did some of her teacher training there on a University exchange scheme. So she did her bit back in the late 70's to turn out current Obama supporters

In the UK private / public schools means you pay, state schools means funded by the government, (and parents depending on how affluent an area you live in )

Keith I'm missing something as well, I know that would not work in Oz because if the taxman believes you are in a scheme to deliberately avoid corporate or personal tax he will charge the tax anyway and the onus is on you to prove him wrong.
Maybe the tax law is different in the U.K.
Also we have a thing called a fringe benefit tax, which means if my company bought a boat or luxury car for my benefit I would be taxed at a rate of 45%on the benefit

Pete,

Put it this way, being British we even have a section on our self assessment income tax form asking you to declare if you use any tax avoidance schemes.

I ran a franchise for 5 years from 2001-2006 and it was the first time I came across accountants, directors loan accounts, paying yourself a minimum wage, dividends etc and I see nothing in Keith's account that surprises me except I think corporation tax was 20% not 40% then.

Yes even a tree hugging, anti gun, anti seal clubbing liberal has his price / good accountant.

Only the little people pay taxes, off upstairs now.

 

[Keith]

Clearly, if you have an option to legally pay tax at a lower rate then you would take it right?

There is nothing whatever to stop the directors of a private company taking the profits as a bonus, paying tax at a lower rate, and then either taking it or loaning it back. Of course, as the gap between Corporation tax and personal tax levels narrows, this way of paying less tax is less valid, but that's what we did year on year.

It never was illegal or an avoidance 'scheme' - simply a legal way to pay less. I mention it merely as an illustration that the nature of the beast worldwide, is tax avoidance wherever and whenever possible.

I posit that where such concepts are the norm (most countries) then it follows that you have a culture which lacks civic responsibility as regards public services including healthcare and how they are paid for.

 

[Mark]

Also we have a thing called a fringe benefit tax, which means if my company bought a boat or luxury car for my benefit I would be taxed at a rate of 45%on the benefit

Same here Pete. It's benefit in kind. Applies to everything from a lunch, up to the mega yacht. If you get the benefit of it, they get to tax it. Ergo, they get a benefit from it too? :laugh:

 

[Keith]

Yes but 40% of luxury boats in the uk are not 'benefits in kind' - they are for 'team building' and corporate training (yeah right). If you purchase a luxury car as a 'company car' as a director, you will be personally taxed accordingly, but the capital sum may have taken the company profit level below the corporation tax threshold.

If they changed the tax rules in the UK now, the higher end motor car and yacht companies would go tits up. A high proportion of the boats in U.K. marinas never get used as they are company owned. There is also the onerous 20% VAT burden which similarly born by the ordinary consumer. Ordinary individuals cannot afford the £500.000 and up purchase premiums to say nothing of the £10,000 annual berthing fees.

The British PAYE and basic rate tax payers subsidise this crazy system.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

O.k. My opinion on tax is you should pay what you must legally and you are stupid to pay one penny more. Our tax laws are so complex one must hire a competent accountant or in my case a team of them to ensure one minimises the tax due. Note I said minimise not avoid.
My philosophy if you like is simple, a parking meter is a tax on parking if it costs $5.00 for an hour you would be stupid to put in $7.00. I view personal income tax and corporate tax in the same way. Strangely some people who have criticised me for tax minimisation would never dream of putting more money than required in a parking meter.
And yes red lights flash and sirens go off at the tax office each year when I put in my return, I have been audited three times in the last ten years. The accountants are worth their money.

 

[Bob Fechter]

Strangely some people who have criticised me for tax minimisation

How many of your critics voluntarily pay more taxes than they owe? Or is it just you and those like you who should pay more?

 

[Keith]

Agreed Pete, but this philosophy won't get us our cradle to grave expert free care that seems to be the sticking point in the USA, and is affecting our own NHS here. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the UK Govt has a huge deficit in tax received against money it pays out on a regular basis. Ergo, they must raise more. I do not believe this should necessarily be the burden of the working man but rather, tax rules that favour the 'creative' business owner should be re-written.

Taxation is there to pay for public services. Why should the average Joe subsidise those who live high on the hoof and who have the wherewithal to 'avoid' paying their fair share?

 

[Larry L.]

Gentlemen: 'Simple solution simply put? Initiate a 'flat tax' on income. Either that or a 'consumption tax'. IOW, everyone pays, say, a 15% tax on any income amount above the poverty level...OR "X%" tax on whatever one buys except for basics like food, clothes and medicine. Beyond that, no deductions, no exemptions, no nothing. (Even the 'underground' incomes of people like dope dealers and prostitutes would be 'hit' by the latter tax.)

The "fair share" thing you mentioned, Keith, has been beaten to death by the left over here ever since Obama planted his butt in the oval office...even though "the rich" already pay about 71% of all income taxes paid in the U.S. Given that, what exactly should be their "fair share"? No lefty has been able to tell us...although it seems to me what they will ALWAYS want is for the rich to pay more than whatever they may be paying at any given time. OTOH, over here, the bottom 47% of earners pay n-o-t-h-i-n-g in income taxes - and yet many of them get 'income tax refunds'! Exactly what's "fair" about that? They use the roads, etc., etc., etc., do they not? Just how is it that someone is entitled to get get a "refund" on monies he didn't pay out? Last I checked, General Motors wouldn't give me a rebate on a car I didn't buy.

But, no matter what, NO TAX will ever be 100% "fair" to everyone all the time.


(Edit: "There is no doubt at all in my mind that the UK Govt has a huge deficit in tax received against money it pays out on a regular basis. Ergo, they must raise more." - Keith

How about they just spend less? No one will ever convince me that anybody's government isn't spending a train load of money it shouldn't be/need not be spending.)

 

[Sean]

Sorry, I think you missed the point I was making and that is, in my example, to avoid paying corporation tax at 40%, drawing the profit as personal bonus income meant paying the tax at a considerably lower and basic rate. That way the company declares zero profit and deprives the exchequer of perhaps 15% tax.

It's legal but it also represents a culture of corporate tax avoidance which is now at epidemic proportions in the UK.

To a degree, it's kept the luxury car and boat business going, as these are often another often used tool to avoid paying corporation tax.

Yeah well here the personal income rate is higher than the corporate rate.

 

[Jim Craik]

Larry,

I have an Idea that just might work. At the end of each year, you total what the Govenment spent, devide up the amount spent and send out a tax bill to each taxpayer.

Now all would know exactly what their portion of the govenments cost was. Then by using ones income, deductions, dependents....................the amount due would be adjusted up or down.

That type of "tax" collection will make it very plain to one and all exactly what was spent, and what each tapayers portion of the expence is.

It would make it much easier to tell year to year what we are spending. All would know that any new expenditure by Washington would absolutly, positivly be seen and noted by all!

Why am I paying more this year than last....................oh yea, its that war you started!

Why am I paying less this year..................because we cut some of those entitlements!

Exactly how much will the Affordable Health Care Law cost me per year.......then we can make informed decisions on cost/benifit.

It would help to give the average taxpayer a real indication of what was being spent.

Plus any increase/decrease in spending would become immediatly obvious to all. It seems to me that this would cut down on "pork", lawmakers would on a yearly basis go out of their way, to pear down spending to only what is necessary!

 

[Robert May Eng.]

the bottom 47% of earners pay n-o-t-h-i-n-g in income taxes - and yet many of them get 'income tax refunds'!

Nobody escapes taxes Larry, the stuff is like a virus. The low earners many of which pedal the wheels of industry may not be paying income tax but they are taxed indirectly on everything they purchase. Losses incurred by companies through whatever tax system are only handed down the line to the consumer. Tax is like a slug on the cabbage of life.

Bob

 

[Larry L.]

The low earners many of which pedal the wheels of industry may not be paying income tax but they are taxed indirectly on everything they purchase.

So are the rest of us, no?

 

[Larry L.]

Larry,

I have an Idea that just might work. At the end of each year, you total what the Govenment spent, devide up the amount spent and send out a tax bill to each taxpayer.

Now all would know exactly what their portion of the govenments cost was. Then by using ones income, deductions, dependents....................the amount due would be adjusted up or down.

That type of "tax" collection will make it very plain to one and all exactly what was spent, and what each tapayers portion of the expence is.

It would make it much easier to tell year to year what we are spending. All would know that any new expenditure by Washington would absolutly, positivly be seen and noted by all!

Why am I paying more this year than last....................oh yea, its that war you started!

Why am I paying less this year..................because we cut some of those entitlements!

Exactly how much will the Affordable Health Care Law cost me per year.......then we can make informed decisions on cost/value.

It would help to give the average taxpayer a real indication of what was being spent.

Plus any increase/decrease in spending would become immediatly obvious to all. It seems to me that this would cut down on "pork", lawmakers would on a yearly basis go out of their way, to pear down spending to only what is necessary!

I'm trying real hard to shoot holes in the basics of what you've proposed, Jim! So far no luck!

Lemme get back to you!!!



Edit: "It seems to me that this would cut down on "pork", lawmakers would on a yearly basis go out of their way, to pear down spending to only what is necessary!" - J.C.

A sure-fire way to slash pork would be to pass a procedure rule that says amendments attached to any bill must be directly related to the purpose of that bill.

IOW, attachments to a bill to build a fed highway from point "A" to point "B" could only deal with changes/additions/exemptions INVOLVING THE BUILDING OF THAT HIGHWAY. 'Couldn't have an attachment to build a $3 mil swimming pool for Sen. Sludgepump's country club, or whatever.

 

[Sean]

Larry,

I have an Idea that just might work. At the end of each year, you total what the Govenment spent, devide up the amount spent and send out a tax bill to each taxpayer.

Now all would know exactly what their portion of the govenments cost was. Then by using ones income, deductions, dependents....................the amount due would be adjusted up or down.

That type of "tax" collection will make it very plain to one and all exactly what was spent, and what each tapayers portion of the expence is.

It would make it much easier to tell year to year what we are spending. All would know that any new expenditure by Washington would absolutly, positivly be seen and noted by all!

Why am I paying more this year than last....................oh yea, its that war you started!

Why am I paying less this year..................because we cut some of those entitlements!

Exactly how much will the Affordable Health Care Law cost me per year.......then we can make informed decisions on cost/benifit.

It would help to give the average taxpayer a real indication of what was being spent.

Plus any increase/decrease in spending would become immediatly obvious to all. It seems to me that this would cut down on "pork", lawmakers would on a yearly basis go out of their way, to pear down spending to only what is necessary!

How about this also. Each person pays something in taxes, even if its say 5% of income. that way if somethign goes up everybody feels it.

Here is the firghtening stat, each families share oif the debt is something like 120k. Then of course you have state town local debt as well. Not too many people can write a cheque for 100k.

But yeah your proposal is great, everybody though must have some skin in the game.

 

[Sean]

Gentlemen: 'Simple solution simply put? Initiate a 'flat tax' on income. Either that or a 'consumption tax'. IOW, everyone pays, say, a 15% tax on any income amount above the poverty level...OR "X%" tax on whatever one buys except for basics like food, clothes and medicine. Beyond that, no deductions, no exemptions, no nothing. (Even the 'underground' incomes of people like dope dealers and prostitutes would be 'hit' by the latter tax.)

The "fair share" thing you mentioned, Keith, has been beaten to death by the left over here ever since Obama planted his butt in the oval office...even though "the rich" already pay about 71% of all income taxes paid in the U.S. Given that, what exactly should be their "fair share"? No lefty has been able to tell us...although it seems to me what they will ALWAYS want is for the rich to pay more than whatever they may be paying at any given time. OTOH, over here, the bottom 47% of earners pay n-o-t-h-i-n-g in income taxes - and yet many of them get 'income tax refunds'! Exactly what's "fair" about that? They use the roads, etc., etc., etc., do they not? Just how is it that someone is entitled to get get a "refund" on monies he didn't pay out? Last I checked, General Motors wouldn't give me a rebate on a car I didn't buy.

But, no matter what, NO TAX will ever be 100% "fair" to everyone all the time.


(Edit: "There is no doubt at all in my mind that the UK Govt has a huge deficit in tax received against money it pays out on a regular basis. Ergo, they must raise more." - Keith

How about they just spend less? No one will ever convince me that anybody's government isn't spending a train load of money it shouldn't be/need not be spending.)

The argument against falt tax, or sales tax is its regressive.
The current plan being floated is that there are two tax rates 10% and 25%, zero loopholes. Pigs will fly before this happens. The reason is every induistry benefiting from hiogh tax rates and then loophole distrotions will foght iot tooth and nail, including the accounting industry who prepares taxes and charitioes who benefit.

But yeah a simplified system might mean people who work and pay the 39% rate might well pay 25%. Corps paying 11%(on average) will pay 25%, a lot of ofshore income will come home and pay 25%. Hedge fund mamagers will pay 25% not 20, and in fact Goiv will collect the same if not more money. To me that woudl be fair.

The positive benefit, is samll businesses would be healthier and growth woudl be stronger plus consumption would rise helping everybody.

But try get an insurabnce lobby to let go of tax deductions.

We all know what needs to be done, but neither party is going to do it.

We all know people now live toa median 80 years not 65 when social security was started. We know 60 is the new 40 which implies that retirement can be lifetd to 67 therby making the sytem solvent, plus being engaged keeps you healthier longer. But no one has the courage to do this.

 

[Sean]

Yea thats right, we push this rediculous school thing, not for the kids, not because a good education has proven to improve ones lot in life.

No, we push education only because it just makes us feel good!

.........@*#%x$X

OK Jim you seem purposefully not to understand what i am sayiong, blinded as you are in a liberal bent into believing any other view is diotic. So let me try explain further. I think education is great, but education has many forms and many parents, schools are but one part. It is a fact that more school budget is not the answer, even teachers if you speak tot hem will tell you that. My problem with people like you is you think that more money is the solution, when its patently not. Putting more money into poorly performing prgrams does not fioxc tehm, it just bankrupts the system till there is total collapse and no one has anything.

Yes and while you are working on "parental commitment, parental responsibility, you Red State folks might just teach your childern about why an education is important, where babies come from and why complaining about people on food stamps/welfare while leading the nation in food stamps/welfare is..............%#$*&!

Tell the Red State folks who complain bitterly about Americans who pay no taxes, tell them who those folks are!

Yes this map is a few years old, but it shows where the problem is very clearly and the problem is not education and its not "Libs"!

What is clear Jim is also that people are overwhelmingly moving to red states because opportunity has been killed in blue states. Look where people are moving to. For sure people should know where babies come from and about contraception. What you are doing is tying fiscal conservatism with looney religious thinking thereby nbegating fiscal responsibility. Its a great game, the rpesident is very adept at it too, only squashing someone who does not agree with you does not make you right and them wrong.



Yes, the Lib states that push that horrible education, seem to be making enough to be paying taxes. Perhaps you Red States might look into it, you know, instead of complaining try paying for the services you receive!

Yeah Jim I am always remimded of that lib bastion Deroit, a city that destroyed iutself into bankrupcy and then dsome. Or I am remineded of that other great lib state california, where the young who apire and work leave in droves, where growth is stalled and no new industry worth its salt wants to set foot(exept tech which employs few relatively speaking) I am reminded of that red state tenesee where our now foreign auto industry thrives where workers vote against having unions are more productive and are paid the same as a union plant.

The playbook from the 60's ahs moved on. Not all companies are abusive, not all industries poor comunity partners, and not everyone is going to be a computer programer making 6 figures.
There are other ways of doing things and some of them are way better. Spending intoi statal bankrupcy fior marginal gains is not a sustainable plan. There are not enough rich people to rob to pay for the liberal utopia, and the utopia does not work even then, look at california, why is it that california fdor the first time in memory has a loss of people moving in and red sates a gain.

You can get as angry as you want. I want the same good things for people you do, I am not a ignorant religious yahoo, I just see that the current social policies dont deliver are antique and too expensive. There are better ways of doing things and some things cant be done if people dont take responsibility themselvs, gov is not a substitute parent.

 

[Jim Craik]

Sean,

Let me see, you look at this map.....................

Do you say, my God, I had no idea that those red state consevatives who complain the most about some not paying taxes, lead the nation in not paying taxes?

Do you say, why would those Red State Consevatives who want nothing more than ending wellfare and food stamps lead the nation in receiving welfare and food stamps?

Do you say, its kind if stupid for those Red States that virtually all take in more from the Government than they pay in taxes trying to cut those taxes that they receive?

Noooooooooo!

You talk about Detroit........................

Sean, how much worse would that part of the country be if the Conservatives got their way and allowed GM, Chrysler and the Banking industry to fail?

****************

Sean,

You said this.......

"You know jim the problem with you is its a polarised competition. I dont see red and blue or dem and republican, frankly they are both aholes."

Now Sean, we might even believed what you say, except you continualy blame all problems on "Libs".

You continually talk about the problems of polarisation, yet that all you do!