RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes.

RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 4:36:41 PM)
Flatten it and be done.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 4:39:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 if its in the friggin tax code/law that a person can deduct their mortgage payment or get a deduction for an IRA If you would like to start a new topic on this, I would be happy to contribute, with substance and data. Just a quick glimpse, if my tax rate would normally be 30%, then that means my deductions have that much weight as well. So compare someone that is deducting mortgage interest at a 15% rate to someone that is doing so at a 30% rate. When you get to the bottom line they are often much closer in effective tax rate paid. The reason for this is someone in the higher tax bracket usually has a home loan much marger than one in a lower one, so their total interest is more. I would not mind there being a cap on the deduction myself.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 4:40:08 PM)
I do not disagree, but there are other factors that need to be taken into consideration when moving towards a flat tax. That would be meat for another topic. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Flatten it and be done.

tj444 -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 5:56:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf With your word choice you seem very emotionally charged about this. If you don't care what I call it, then why mention it to begin with? My whole concern is that ALL of us that earn something off our society, pay back something to help us all. These tax subsidies were purposefully created by politicians on the advice of lobbyist. Go back and do the research as to which politicians supported it, which lobbyist groups had direct access to those politicians, and what companies hired those lobbying groups. I believe that people on both side of the partisan line would be surprised. These companies are not evading taxes, they are using existing things as loopholes to avoid paying their fair share. Now I will agree that 35% is pretty high, and if a similar approach is taken now, that was taken in the 80's it would be to remove these subsidies, and lower the tax rate. With a lower tax rate it then becomes financially inequitable to pay to avoid the taxes, as compared to just paying them. No, i am not emotionally charged at all. I dont agree with you calling parts of the tax code/law as loopholes. They arent. You calling them loopholes means you are emotionally charged as you label something entirely legal as a loophole, implying that corps that use legit tax deductions etc are doing something untoward. If i was in the position of being able to depreciate equipment faster i would. I would pay for the equipment all at once, not over 15 or 9 or however many years the govt wants to drag it out over.. so i see faster depreciation as being fairer.. And quite frankly, if the tax code says i have to depreciate certain equipment over 15 years, I will think twice about even buying it and in the end might not. And if i dont buy it then i dont need any more employees to operate it either.. so someone that could have a job doesnt.. If you dont like what your politicians are doing then elect someone else.. or better yet, go into politics yourself!

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 6:30:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 No, i am not emotionally charged at all. Then I apologize for presuming such. quote: I dont agree with you calling parts of the tax code/law as loopholes. They arent. You calling them loopholes means you are emotionally charged as you label something entirely legal as a loophole, implying that corps that use legit tax deductions etc are doing something untoward. I am not emotionally charged either. Having been in the tax preparation, and advisement business for many years previously, I can tell you now that calling them loopholes is not just me calling them that. It has been a neutral term for as long as I was in the business. What they, and many others are doing that is untoward, is going against the intent of these credits/subsidies/etc. quote: If i was in the position of being able to depreciate equipment faster i would. I would pay for the equipment all at once, not over 15 or 9 or however many years the govt wants to drag it out over.. so i see faster depreciation as being fairer.. Well it is not so much a matter of fairer, but a matter of balancing business models, equity (value) of the company, and limiting deductions. As can be seen with the examples in the report, if it is not balanced properly then income tax can be eliminated. The accelerated depreciation was intended for the purpose to help starting businesses, and larger business replace equipment or expand. Creating new businesses, stablizing existing ones, and expanding existing ones should boost the economy, but it has not had the original impact as predicted. quote: And quite frankly, if the tax code says i have to depreciate certain equipment over 15 years, I will think twice about even buying it and in the end might not. And if i dont buy it then i dont need any more employees to operate it either.. so someone that could have a job doesnt.. Actually most business do not take this into consideration when buying necessary equipment, or making capital expenditures. The write off will be there, no matter how long it takes. Where the problem actually lies is when the IRS says you must depreciate it over 15 years, when the realistic life of that equipment is only 10 years. This is something that many were trying to get changed over the last couple of decades. quote: If you dont like what your politicians are doing then elect someone else.. or better yet, go into politics yourself! I vote third party most of the time, as almost all of the current elected officials are all from one party, and that is the corpatist party. As far as going into politics, I do not see that happening as I actually inhaled, not to mention the current system corrupts even the most well intentioned and principled person, at the higher levels. Now back to the fact that many corporations pay very little to no taxes, while making millions of dollars in profits. Do you see that as fair really? These companies are making good money off of society, and what are they giving back?

tj444 -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 7:00:29 PM)
I dont see how a company can use these deductions in a way not intended.. they cant depreciate equipment they dont have and didnt pay for.. i see the deductions as being used in the exact way that they were intended.. you cant deduct losses if you didnt incur losses, etc.. I define the word loophole as using a glitch as a way of getting out of paying tax, but these deductions are written in law and not hidden or a glitch. If it werent the law then they would not be able to use them.. And they were written for all businesses, many which do need them, not just a few big ones.. I dont think looking at a corps financial statements for 1 year where there were extraordinary events and temporary deductions as being entirely fair.. imo, people should look at their financials statements over many years. Just as with personal tax returns, you could have deductions that one year brings your taxes way down but all the other years you were paying the same as everyone else. And if they are multinational corps, then to expect them to pay US tax on worldwide operations is unreasonable.. Imo, the sleazy corps are the ones that bill the US govt $1,000 for a $50 toilet.. Sure, the govt wanted a bigger bang with more businesses started and jobs etc but then they wanted a bigger bang with the homebuyer tax credit too, the govt wanted that tax incentive to turn around the housing market and it didnt work the way they expected.. but the politicians dont have very good crystal balls and underestimated the mood of people, the caution people and businesses have now.. and lets be real, with the multi-city, month long protests and things going on, who wants to take the risk? How many people wanted to start a business during the depression in the 30s? This has not been an ordinary recession..

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 7:14:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf I would not mind there being a cap on the deduction myself. Uhhh...there already is a cap.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 8:34:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I pay my fair share, why are you afraid? Really? So if the IRS audited all your tax returns, they would find not a single quibble? Your returns are perfect? Because if you took one deduction you shouldn't have or missed reporting a tiny piece of income you should have - by your own logic, they'd have to kill you. I can honestly say that, given the complexities of the tax code, there are areas where I think I've paid the appropriate amount but I'm not certain. Neither are the tax attorneys. They get into arguments about things. In fact, the IRS once called my father up about an amount he owed them and after fifteen minutes of discussion, they apologized to him for their error. They don't even know how to apply parts of the tax code. (Of course, he did his taxes by hand using a pencil and paper, so when questioned, he could produce line by line and number by number every calculation for every entry in his 1040 long - I don't think they were ready for that.) I'm reasonably certain that if the IRS wanted to indict anyone for tax fraud, they could probably do it. Mass death! These are individual returns, mind. You do understand that large corporations employ thousands of tax specialists? That the debates about the proper amounts owed go on for years and quite often even a decade after the fact the IRS admits errors and refunds moneys already paid by the big companies? I am by no means saying that there aren't corporations commiting some form of tax fraud - but quite often the tax code is so complex and the details of tax assessment so obscure that years of wrangling go on over exactly how they should be applied. I also find it interesting that your immediate asusmption is some sort of fear or moral culpability on my part. Is that really the world you live in? The only possible reason for disagreement with you is guilt, sin or fear? [Edited: Typos.]

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 8:40:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf It has been a neutral term for as long as I was in the business. It depends on what you mean by "neutral". It means and always has meant exploiting an unintended aspect of the Code to avoid taxes. It doesnt mean that it is illegal, but it certainly doesnt mean a deduction that was always intended to be allowed. Deny that and I call bs on you ever being in the business.' Loopholes come into being through the passage of statutes, the enactment of regulations, the drafting of contracts or the decisions of courts. A loophole allows an individual or group to use some gap in the restrictions or requirements of the law or contract for personal advantage without technically breaking the law or contract. In response, lawmakers and regulators work to pass reforms that will close the loophole. For example, in the federal tax code, a long-standing loophole was the socalled tax shelter, which allowed taxpayers to reduce their tax debt by making investments. Although not closed entirely, this loophole was substantially reduced by the tax reform act of 1986 (Pub. L. No. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 [codified as amended in numerous sections of 26 U.S.C.A.]). Loopholes exist because it is impossible to foresee every circumstance or course of conduct that will arise under, or in response to, the law. Loopholes often endure for a time because they can be difficult to close. Those who benefit from a loophole will lobby legislators or regulators to leave the loophole open. In the case of Election Campaign Financing, it is the legislators themselves who benefit. The Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. No. 93-443, 88 Stat. 1263 [1974] [codified as amended in scattered sections of 2 U.S.C.A. §§ 431–455 (1988)]) were passed to limit private financing of federal election campaigns. But loopholes in the law allow these limits to be circumvented. Through one loophole, intermediaries can pool or "bundle" contributions so that the limit is not legally exceeded. Through another, money raised specifically for building political parties (soft money) is funneled into campaigns.

thompsonx -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/17/2011 1:41:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 No, i am not emotionally charged at all. I dont agree with you calling parts of the tax code/law as loopholes. They arent. You calling them loopholes means you are emotionally charged as you label something entirely legal as a loophole, implying that corps that use legit tax deductions etc are doing something untoward. If i was in the position of being able to depreciate equipment faster i would. You do realize that the depreciated equipment can be sold and the money recieved for that depreciated equipment is not taxable. I would pay for the equipment all at once, not over 15 or 9 or however many years the govt wants to drag it out over.. so i see faster depreciation as being fairer. If the equipment is not worn out in that time frame why is your way more fair? . And quite frankly, if the tax code says i have to depreciate certain equipment over 15 years, I will think twice about even buying it and in the end might not. You would not buy a needed piece of equipment because it required a longer depreciation schedule...clearly you did not need the equipment in the first place. And if i dont buy it then i dont need any more employees to operate it either.. so someone that could have a job doesnt.. If you make money by buying the equipment and you don't buy it because you can't make as much money as you would like,what does that say about your business acumin?

tj444 -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/17/2011 5:08:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 No, i am not emotionally charged at all. I dont agree with you calling parts of the tax code/law as loopholes. They arent. You calling them loopholes means you are emotionally charged as you label something entirely legal as a loophole, implying that corps that use legit tax deductions etc are doing something untoward. If i was in the position of being able to depreciate equipment faster i would. You do realize that the depreciated equipment can be sold and the money recieved for that depreciated equipment is not taxable. I would pay for the equipment all at once, not over 15 or 9 or however many years the govt wants to drag it out over.. so i see faster depreciation as being fairer. If the equipment is not worn out in that time frame why is your way more fair? . And quite frankly, if the tax code says i have to depreciate certain equipment over 15 years, I will think twice about even buying it and in the end might not. You would not buy a needed piece of equipment because it required a longer depreciation schedule...clearly you did not need the equipment in the first place. And if i dont buy it then i dont need any more employees to operate it either.. so someone that could have a job doesnt.. If you make money by buying the equipment and you don't buy it because you can't make as much money as you would like,what does that say about your business acumin? according to the irs- "If you dispose of depreciable or amortizable property at a gain, you may have to treat all or part of the gain (even if otherwise nontaxable) as ordinary income." http://www.irs.gov/publications/p544/ch03.html It is more fair cuz i would pay for the equipment in full at the time of purchase, imo I should be able to write it off in full the year i pay for it. I do know that's not the way the irs looks at it, but i dont happen to agree with them.. Lots of times a decision needs to be made, do you make do with old inefficient equipment (that may need frequent repair & downtime) or do you buy something new, reliable and more efficient?.. no, you might not need the new equipment, it just depends on the situation, age of equipment, machinery advances etc.. What it says is if its a choice between (A) putting money into equipment depreciated over X years or (B) putting it someplace else where it makes just as much money (& costs written off in the year incurred),.. then "B" would be a better..

thompsonx -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/18/2011 5:36:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 No, i am not emotionally charged at all. I dont agree with you calling parts of the tax code/law as loopholes. They arent. You calling them loopholes means you are emotionally charged as you label something entirely legal as a loophole, implying that corps that use legit tax deductions etc are doing something untoward. If i was in the position of being able to depreciate equipment faster i would. You do realize that the depreciated equipment can be sold and the money recieved for that depreciated equipment is not taxable. I would pay for the equipment all at once, not over 15 or 9 or however many years the govt wants to drag it out over.. so i see faster depreciation as being fairer. If the equipment is not worn out in that time frame why is your way more fair? . And quite frankly, if the tax code says i have to depreciate certain equipment over 15 years, I will think twice about even buying it and in the end might not. You would not buy a needed piece of equipment because it required a longer depreciation schedule...clearly you did not need the equipment in the first place. And if i dont buy it then i dont need any more employees to operate it either.. so someone that could have a job doesnt.. If you make money by buying the equipment and you don't buy it because you can't make as much money as you would like,what does that say about your business acumin? according to the irs- "If you dispose of depreciable or amortizable property at a gain, you may have to treat all or part of the gain (even if otherwise nontaxable) as ordinary income." http://www.irs.gov/publications/p544/ch03.html The magic word here is "gain" You can not normally sell used equipment at a gain. It is more fair cuz i would pay for the equipment in full at the time of purchase, imo I should be able to write it off in full the year i pay for it. I do know that's not the way the irs looks at it, but i dont happen to agree with them.. The irs looks upon the deprecated equipment as depreciated over it's usefull life not the year it was purchased. Lots of times a decision needs to be made, do you make do with old inefficient equipment (that may need frequent repair & downtime) or do you buy something new, reliable and more efficient?.. no, you might not need the new equipment, it just depends on the situation, age of equipment, machinery advances etc.. As I said if you need te equipment then you buy it if not you do not. What it says is if its a choice between (A) putting money into equipment depreciated over X years or (B) putting it someplace else where it makes just as much money (& costs written off in the year incurred),.. then "B" would be a better..

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875