Connecticut

[Zlaxer]

Ok, then what stops me from creating a shell corporation and hiding my income there?

The courts.

[Zlaxer]

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/ ... ticut.html


You know things are bad when Slate concedes the DNC has fucked up CT.

[MilSpecs]

The article touched on what's holding Ct back as a great place to live and work: the failure to renovate its cities. New haven is an obvious place to start.

Ct has towns that are perfect places to live except for the lack of proximity to a desirable city. I haven't seen many towns that compare to madison, for example. I would retire there in a minute if I could.

[PartyOf5]

Of course, with the exception of 90% of the public, who think that lowering the various corporate tax rates will have some effect on where corporations move.

What exactly are you trying to say? That it has no effect, or some effect? The above sounds like you think it has zero effect, but your original statement indicates otherwise:

What if I told you that this had almost nothing to do with tax policy?

That puts you in with the 90% that thinks it does have some effect.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Of course, with the exception of 90% of the public, who think that lowering the various corporate tax rates will have some effect on where corporations move.

What exactly are you trying to say? That it has no effect, or some effect? The above sounds like you think it has zero effect, but your original statement indicates otherwise:

What if I told you that this had almost nothing to do with tax policy?

That puts you in with the 90% that thinks it does have some effect.

I'm trying to say that the kerfuffle over tax rates is a distraction. We give away piles of cash every year to the bastards, in some kind of perpetual race to the bottom. There is no excuse whatsoever for cutting corporate taxes, when they already pay almost nothing.

[Fife]

"they"

[Zlaxer]

Of course, with the exception of 90% of the public, who think that lowering the various corporate tax rates will have some effect on where corporations move.

What exactly are you trying to say? That it has no effect, or some effect? The above sounds like you think it has zero effect, but your original statement indicates otherwise:

What if I told you that this had almost nothing to do with tax policy?

That puts you in with the 90% that thinks it does have some effect.

I'm trying to say that the kerfuffle over tax rates is a distraction. We give away piles of cash every year to the bastards, in some kind of perpetual race to the bottom. There is no excuse whatsoever for cutting corporate taxes, when they already pay almost nothing.

You do understand that corporate money is taxed twice? Right? Once at 15% when the Corporation "earns" the initial amount, and again when it is distributed out at dividends at 30-50% and as salary/wages at 10-50+% (state and Fed tax)....

Arguing that the rich don't pay their fair share because corporations only pay 15% is a dishonest position.


A better position is that the income gap between individuals is growing too wide....

What happening in Il and CT, and has happened in PR, is going to happen at the Federal level.

[SuburbanFarmer]

What exactly are you trying to say? That it has no effect, or some effect? The above sounds like you think it has zero effect, but your original statement indicates otherwise:

That puts you in with the 90% that thinks it does have some effect.

I'm trying to say that the kerfuffle over tax rates is a distraction. We give away piles of cash every year to the bastards, in some kind of perpetual race to the bottom. There is no excuse whatsoever for cutting corporate taxes, when they already pay almost nothing.

You do understand that corporate money is taxed twice? Right? Once at 15% when the Corporation "earns" the initial amount, and again when it is distributed out at dividends at 30-50% and as salary/wages at 10-50+% (state and Fed tax)....

Arguing that the rich don't pay their fair share because corporations only pay 15% is a dishonest position.


A better position is that the income gap between individuals is growing too wide....

I'd absolutely have sympathy regarding that, if they were actually paying those rates. However, we both know that's not the case.

The income gap is worsened by far, due to all the loopholes and games played by the upper class.

[Zlaxer]

I'm trying to say that the kerfuffle over tax rates is a distraction. We give away piles of cash every year to the bastards, in some kind of perpetual race to the bottom. There is no excuse whatsoever for cutting corporate taxes, when they already pay almost nothing.

You do understand that corporate money is taxed twice? Right? Once at 15% when the Corporation "earns" the initial amount, and again when it is distributed out at dividends at 30-50% and as salary/wages at 10-50+% (state and Fed tax)....

Arguing that the rich don't pay their fair share because corporations only pay 15% is a dishonest position.


A better position is that the income gap between individuals is growing too wide....

I'd absolutely have sympathy regarding that, if they were actually paying those rates. However, we both know that's not the case.

The income gap is worsened by far, due to all the loopholes and games played by the upper class.

So paying 15% tax on $300,000.00+ / year income is not a "fair share"? Again, the issue isn't the rate of taxation - it's an income distribution problem. Trying to redistribute wealth via tax policies only increases government power and encourages corruption.




I think the left would make far more progress if they would just conceded taxes are too high and asked the GOP to start looking at ways to fix the income gap without increasing taxes - but as this would lead to a decrease in government power - they won't....that says a lot about their motivations/intent right there.


An no - I'm not pushing a full "bottom up" approach...

It's also a government spending problem....

[SuburbanFarmer]

You do understand that corporate money is taxed twice? Right? Once at 15% when the Corporation "earns" the initial amount, and again when it is distributed out at dividends at 30-50% and as salary/wages at 10-50+% (state and Fed tax)....

Arguing that the rich don't pay their fair share because corporations only pay 15% is a dishonest position.


A better position is that the income gap between individuals is growing too wide....

I'd absolutely have sympathy regarding that, if they were actually paying those rates. However, we both know that's not the case.

The income gap is worsened by far, due to all the loopholes and games played by the upper class.

So paying 15% tax on $300,000.00+ / year income is not a "fair share"? Again, the issue isn't the rate of taxation - it's an income distribution problem. Trying to redistribute wealth via tax policies only increases government power and encourages corruption.



I think the left would make far more progress if they would just conceded taxes are too high and asked the GOP to start looking at ways to fix the income gap without increasing taxes - but as this would lead to a decrease in government power - they won't....that says a lot about their motivations/intent right there.


An no - I'm not pushing a full "bottom up" approach...

15% on 300k? No, that is not even close to a "fair share", when the shmucks are paying 25% on the starvation wages.

Even if both groups managed to keep it around 15%, the guy with 300k will afford himself an attorney to assist with shell corps, LLCs in the Caymans, and God-knows-what to end up with about 5%.

Close all the loopholes, and we can talk rates. If anything, they need to be far higher, on the tiny bit of income that the Uppers can't shuffle away.