Let's Hear It for Bill Gates

[Selena_Kitt]

It is the sick moral foundation of most who see charity as a boon, a benefit and a 'human' thing to do; it is not.

UNLESS it's a tax break... and you make more by giving... then by all means, eh?

And HOW were we going to pay for all those kids those mommies didn't abort, Ami? Charities you say? Uh... who's going to invest in those?



*riding the naughty horse today*

 

[rgraham666]

*riding the naughty horse today*

Is that what came up on the Consequence Wheel?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Is that what came up on the Consequence Wheel?

Inquiring minds want to know.

tee hee!

Haven't spun it yet... I figure if I'm gonna be naughty...........

 

[Liar]

If you had disposable wealth - would you give it all away as Gates intends?

To put it as briefly as possible: What else could I do with $30bn? I'd run out of stuff to buy.

 

[imalickin]

Of course they do.

And in the late '50s, early '60s, when the corporations carried three to four times the tax burden they do now the economy was paralysed, literally paralysed, with expensive products beyond the reach of most consumers.

Corporation do not pay taxes, they are a conduit for those taxes. Those taxes are paid by the indivduals that buy the product. Those taxes are imbedded in the price of that product which the corporation collects and passes on to the government.

So in reality the corporation pays no taxes out of its pocket. You and I pay that tax when we purchase the items the corporation makes. If you don't buy then you don't pay the tax, as simple as that. Even if the corporation was to show no after tax profit, any taxes paid would be from the sale of goods. So hence the tax is paid for by the individual who purchases the goods.

 

[minsue]

To put it as briefly as possible: What else could I do with $30bn? I'd run out of stuff to buy.

Horde it in the name of capitalism, of course!

 

[amicus]

SelenaKittyn]UNLESS it's a tax break... and you make more by giving... then by all means, eh?

And HOW were we going to pay for all those kids those mommies didn't abort, Ami? Charities you say? Uh... who's going to invest in those?



*riding the naughty horse today*

[/I]

~~~~

Usually I am the 'naughty horse' and I do the riding, thank you...

Rather audacious of you Selena, to continue to perpetrate and perpetuate the mistaken concept that a 'tax break' is a charity.

Gee, Mr. Oil Company, we will only tax your profits at 63% percent instead of 69% this year, but be sure to donate some of the saved tax money to a good political cause, (hint, hint)

A tax break, a charity? I don't think so.

And until you idiots get it out of your thinking that government has the obligation and the authority to tax all people to educate some, you will never get a handle on the true problem of administering 'modern' educational tools in a manner that benefits all. (Hint, leave it to the free market place)

'nuff said?

amicus (this keyboard has something two year old boy sticky on it....damn this domesticity!@)

 

[rgraham666]

Corporation do not pay taxes, they are a conduit for those taxes. Those taxes are paid by the indivduals that buy the product. Those taxes are imbedded in the price of that product which the corporation collects and passes on to the government.

So in reality the corporation pays no taxes out of its pocket. You and I pay that tax when we purchase the items the corporation makes. If you don't buy then you don't pay the tax, as simple as that. Even if the corporation was to show no after tax profit, any taxes paid would be from the sale of goods. So hence the tax is paid for by the individual who purchases the goods.

Uhm, isn't that rather a non-sequitur?

I pointed out, sarcastically, that once corporations paid much higher taxes than they do now. And the economy at the time was booming. Wouldn't this seem to indicate that the textbook you quoted might be an abstract case unrelated to the real world?

I'm also wondering. We grant corporations all the rights we grant individuals. Indeed as I understand it, they are individuals before the law. Shouldn't that also mean they have the same obligations as us? To support the nation they live in? Pay for the services that the nation provides for them?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

And HOW were we going to pay for all those kids those mommies didn't abort, Ami? Charities you say? Uh... who's going to invest in those?

"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"





(The above not targeted at anyone here - I just couldn't resist. )

 

[imalickin]

Uhm, isn't that rather a non-sequitur?

I pointed out, sarcastically, that once corporations paid much higher taxes than they do now. And the economy at the time was booming. Wouldn't this seem to indicate that the textbook you quoted might be an abstract case unrelated to the real world?

I'm also wondering. We grant corporations all the rights we grant individuals. Indeed as I understand it, they are individuals before the law. Shouldn't that also mean they have the same obligations as us? To support the nation they live in? Pay for the services that the nation provides for them?

Well I can now see you have no clue on how the real world works, so I will say nothing further on this subject. Read an economics book on corporate tax structures and a free market place.

 

[minsue]

Well I can now see you have no clue on how the real world works, so I will say nothing further on this subject. Read an economics book on corporate tax structures and a free market place.

Way to debate, ima.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Uhm, isn't that rather a non-sequitur?

I pointed out, sarcastically, that once corporations paid much higher taxes than they do now. And the economy at the time was booming. Wouldn't this seem to indicate that the textbook you quoted might be an abstract case unrelated to the real world?

I'm also wondering. We grant corporations all the rights we grant individuals. Indeed as I understand it, they are individuals before the law. Shouldn't that also mean they have the same obligations as us? To support the nation they live in? Pay for the services that the nation provides for them?

I think the idea is that corporations just pass on the taxes in the form of higher prices or lower profits. There's a term, "flow through entities." "Lower profits" may sound attractive to some, but there is a social cost to them. And at the end of the day it is not the abstract "corporation" that suffers the lower profits anyway, but the shareholders. Individuals, in other words.

It is argued that taxes on corporations are a way of hiding the real tax burden. It would be more economically efficient to eliminate them, and replace them with taxes on individuals. Since I am required to be nice to those left of center the rest of the day I will allow you to design that tax regime.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"

*snort*

Rather audacious of you Selena, to continue to perpetrate and perpetuate the mistaken concept that a 'tax break' is a charity.

no, you misunderstand me (purposely or not)... I'm speaking of individuals, not corporations, here... those with gazillions of dollars who get lots of little extra perks from the IRS for giving their money away to charities...

you said:

It is the sick moral foundation of most who see charity as a boon, a benefit and a 'human' thing to do; it is not.

now, using Amilogic, it makes sense ONLY to give to charities if the rich person (i.e. those driving the free market) benefits, yes?

(this keyboard has something two year old boy sticky on it....damn this domesticity!)

are you sure that's what that sticky stuff is, darlin'?

 

[rgraham666]

Well I can now see you have no clue on how the real world works, so I will say nothing further on this subject. Read an economics book on corporate tax structures and a free market place.

What makes you think I haven't?

I'm especially fond of books about the Great Depression. Remember that?

Before that happened, perfection. Low taxes for corprations, no rules on how to run a business. The future was beautiful. No where to go but up.

Until the whole thing came crashing down as most of that prosperity was an illusion. Built on pipe dreams, margin and irrational exuberance. Was a major contributing cause to WWII.

To paraphrase Spencer Tracy's character in Inherit The Wind, "The free market is a good thing, a very good thing. It's just not the only thing."

 

[imalickin]

Way to debate, ima.

Ok, so you what to hear about the real world?

In the real world the corporation, makes a product, provides a service. It prices those out based on the raw material it will use, the people it will have to pay, the benefits it will have to provide, the taxes it will have to pay and a little bit of a margin called profit.

So if I (the corporation) start with $100,000 and make 100 widgets in a plant I rent, with 10 employees and the tax rate is a flat 10% and I want to make a 5% profit on each item and it takes me one month to make them what would the widget sell for?

Each employee makes $500 a month x 10 = $5,000
Rent is $10,000
Raw Material is $50 a widget
Benefits, insurance and utilites is $5,000 a month

So I have expended $25,000 to make 100 widgets and I want to make a profit of 5%($1,250) and the tax on my profit would be 10%($125) so I would have to charge $264 to meet my profit margin and tax burden.

This is a simplistic approach as it does not take into effect the Employer portion of the Social Security and Medicare. Nor does it take into effect all the complience cost associated with starting and running business.

Does that qualify? As a debate?

 

[imalickin]

I think the idea is that corporations just pass on the taxes in the form of higher prices or lower profits. There's a term, "flow through entities." "Lower profits" may sound attractive to some, but there is a social cost to them. And at the end of the day it is not the abstract "corporation" that suffers the lower profits anyway, but the shareholders. Individuals, in other words.

It is argued that taxes on corporations are a way of hiding the real tax burden. It would be more economically efficient to eliminate them, and replace them with taxes on individuals. Since I am required to be nice to those left of center the rest of the day I will allow you to design that tax regime.

Also in lowering profit there may be other concequenses such as restructing. That means loss of jobs. So who is effected, the individual. Again.

 

[rgraham666]

I think the idea is that corporations just pass on the taxes in the form of higher prices or lower profits. There's a term, "flow through entities." "Lower profits" may sound attractive to some, but there is a social cost to them. And at the end of the day it is not the abstract "corporation" that suffers the lower profits anyway, but the shareholders. Individuals, in other words.

It is argued that taxes on corporations are a way of hiding the real tax burden. It would be more economically efficient to eliminate them, and replace them with taxes on individuals. Since I am required to be nice to those left of center the rest of the day I will allow you to design that tax regime.

I'm not nearly smart enough to do that, Roxanne.

But as I pointed out in another thread, a great deal of a nation's commerce goes through entities other than individuals. Say an airline buying aircraft from a manufacturer. Both corporate entities. Has the nation no right to its share of the money made? After all, it provides both corporations with many services. Airports, air traffic control, assigning exclusive radio frequencies, navigational aids, standards for manufacturing and air safety. Shouldn't the corporations help pay for those?

I'm not talking economics here. Supporting the nation, the society is a civic duty. The nation can make calls on individuals under certain circumstances where we individuals must give up our time, and in some cases our lives to support it. Does a corporation have no similar obligations?

 

[neonlyte]

Just a note on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (see first post for link)

There are two simple values that lie at the core of the foundation’s work:

* All lives—no matter where they are being led—have equal value.

* To whom much has been given, much is expected.

Global Health - $5.8 bn
Education - $2.6 bn
Libraries - $0.3bn
Pacific North West - $0.6bn

Cost of War in Iraq $289bn (based upon Senate Appropriations Committee)

Now... Should Bill and Melinda be giving their money to US services or overseas? I'm not being deliberately provocative and had no idea this thread was going to take the direction it has... but since that is the way you want to take it.

 

[minsue]

Ok, so you what to hear about the real world?

In the real world the corporation, makes a product, provides a service. It prices those out based on the raw material it will use, the people it will have to pay, the benefits it will have to provide, the taxes it will have to pay and a little bit of a margin called profit.

So if I (the corporation) start with $100,000 and make 100 widgets in a plant I rent, with 10 employees and the tax rate is a flat 10% and I want to make a 5% profit on each item and it takes me one month to make them what would the widget sell for?

Each employee makes $500 a month x 10 = $5,000
Rent is $10,000
Raw Material is $50 a widget
Benefits, insurance and utilites is $5,000 a month

So I have expended $25,000 to make 100 widgets and I want to make a profit of 5%($1,250) and the tax on my profit would be 10%($125) so I would have to charge $264 to meet my profit margin and tax burden.

This is a simplistic approach as it does not take into effect the Employer portion of the Social Security and Medicare. Nor does it take into effect all the complience cost associated with starting and running business.

Does that qualify? As a debate?

You misunderstand me, ima. I'm not arguing either side. I'm merely advocating against insulting someone as too stupid to understand simply because they dare to disagree with you. Once you reach the level where that's your argument, you've shown yourself as unable to debate and you've lost. That's all.

Carry on.

 

[imalickin]

I think the idea is that corporations just pass on the taxes in the form of higher prices or lower profits. There's a term, "flow through entities." "Lower profits" may sound attractive to some, but there is a social cost to them. And at the end of the day it is not the abstract "corporation" that suffers the lower profits anyway, but the shareholders. Individuals, in other words.

It is argued that taxes on corporations are a way of hiding the real tax burden. It would be more economically efficient to eliminate them, and replace them with taxes on individuals. Since I am required to be nice to those left of center the rest of the day I will allow you to design that tax regime.

It's already been designed! It's called H.R. 25 in the House and S 25 in the Senate.

 

[imalickin]

You misunderstand me, ima. I'm not arguing either side. I'm merely advocating against insulting someone as too stupid to understand simply because they dare to disagree with you. Once you reach the level where that's your argument, you've shown yourself as unable to debate and you've lost. That's all.

Carry on.

Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to insult anyone! I appologize to RG if he felt insulted that was not my intention.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I'm not nearly smart enough to do that, Roxanne.

But as I pointed out in another thread, a great deal of a nation's commerce goes through entities other than individuals. Say an airline buying aircraft from a manufacturer. Both corporate entities. Has the nation no right to its share of the money made? After all, it provides both corporations with many services. Airports, air traffic control, assigning exclusive radio frequencies, navigational aids, standards for manufacturing and air safety. Shouldn't the corporations help pay for those?

I'm not talking economics here. Supporting the nation, the society is a civic duty. The nation can make calls on individuals under certain circumstances where we individuals must give up our time, and in some cases our lives to support it. Does a corporation have no similar obligations?

However many layers it passes through, at the end of the day the money all comes out of or goes into the pockets of individuals. Taxing all those layers just skews business decisions by making managers think about how to avoid taxes rather than run the company as well as possible, creating the best value for customers and investors, in other words. So it's better to just tax individuals directly, since they pay all the taxes anyway indirectly. And since I'm required to be nice to left of centers I will allow you to select a designated socialist to design that new tax regime.

Minor addendum: Some of the items you list are narrow services of the kind that should be paid for by user fees: "Airports, air traffic control, assigning exclusive radio frequencies, navigational aids . . ." The proximate users and beneficiaries are corps, so they should pay, again for economic efficiency - you want the heavy users paying more and the light ones less. As opposed to general services that benefit society, like coastal defense batteries. But still, at the end of the day, it all comes out of the pockets of either the customers or the shareholders.

 

[matriarch]

To put it as briefly as possible: What else could I do with $30bn? I'd run out of stuff to buy.

I the way you think.

 

[rgraham666]

However many layers it passes through, at the end of the day the money all comes out of or goes into the pockets of individuals. Taxing all those layers just skews business decisions by making managers think about how to avoid taxes rather than run the company as well as possible, creating the best value for customers and investors, in other words. So it's better to just tax individuals directly, since they pay all the taxes anyway indirectly. And since I'm required to be nice to left of centers I will allow you to select a designated socialist to design that new tax regime.

Minor addendum: Some of the items you list are services and should be paid for by user fees: "Airports, air traffic control, assigning exclusive radio frequencies, navigational aids . . ." The proximate users are corps, so they should pay, again for economic efficiency - you want the heavy users paying more and the light ones less. But still, at the end of the day, it all comes out of the pockets of either the customers or the shareholders.

Roxanne, please. I'm trying very hard to be nice to you. Do not call me a socialist again.

We won't come to an agreement here, Roxanne. You're talking economics and I'm talking civic responsibility.

I think the latter is more important, you and ima believe the former is.

We'll vote on it next election.

And that's it for me on this thread.

 

[neonlyte]

I think we might consider petitioning to allow the thread starter to TURN OFF threads

Just to change the subject - does anyone feel like having a fuck?