• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown calls for Burger King boycott over Tim Hortons deal

jonny5 said:
Thats the same thing. Give everyone a 10k deduction, tax everything else, flat rate.
Click to expand...

i prefer marginal rates, though i support simplifying the tax code significantly.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
The table is about individual taxation. Did you really post this twice on another thread or are you seriously mixing up topics. Regardless, corporate taxation is more complex than a simple yes or no in a Wikipedia table. It is also what is except and what receives foreign income tax credits.

Not sure why you are trying to make this topic so simplistic. Yes, BK is doing this for both market and tax reasons. According to BK, it is mostly for the former.
Click to expand...

Whether a nation uses territorial or residency based taxes is almost always the same for both individuals and corporations, as the link explains. And while different nations do have different sets of deductions, etc the fact is that most nations do tax the income earned overseas by businesses which reside in their nation.

And I don't know where you got the idea that I'm simplifying the issue. It's very complex. IMO, the one's simplifying the issue are those calling for elimination of the corporate income tax.
 
Helix said:
i prefer marginal rates, though i support simplifying the tax code significantly.
Click to expand...

The complexity of the tax code is based on the calculation of income. It gets complex because of all the deductions (ie depreciation, amortization, differenting between expenses and investments, etc) used to calculate taxable income. Once the taxable income is calculated, a progressive tax is not complex. All you do is look up your rate in a table and multiply.
 
sangha said:
The complexity of the tax code is based on the calculation of income. It gets complex because of all the deductions (ie depreciation, amortization, differenting between expenses and investments, etc) used to calculate taxable income. Once the taxable income is calculated, a progressive tax is not complex. All you do is look up your rate in a table and multiply.
Click to expand...

our tax code is way too complicated. i think that we could simplify it significantly so that the average person could figure it out intuitively.
 
Helix said:
our tax code is way too complicated. i think that we could simplify it significantly so that the average person could figure it out intuitively.
Click to expand...

I agree. My point isn't that it's not complex; it's that having tax brackets is not what makes it complex.

What makes it complex is calculating (taxable) income which, by it's nature, is complex. However, we have added unnecessary complexity for political reasons.
 
sangha said:
I agree. My point isn't that it's not complex; it's that having tax brackets is not what makes it complex.

What makes it complex is calculating (taxable) income which, by it's nature, is complex. However, we have added unnecessary complexity for political reasons.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that political complexity is there because IMHO, if people actually knew the totality of what they actually pay across the board in ALL taxation as a percentage of their income, from governmental fees, property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, increased cost of goods from hidden taxation that is passed on, etc...There would be a revolt!
 
Helix said:
i prefer marginal rates, though i support simplifying the tax code significantly.
Click to expand...

All marginal rates do is punish success with no return. Which is inherently unfair. Thats how we got to this point where 5% of the people are paying 60% of the income tax.
 
jonny5 said:
So then you were wrong when you said there was a law which stated that corporations were the same as people.
Click to expand...

No, I said "according to law" which scotus decisions are.
 
Phoenix said:
Fox News Link


I am wondering how his constituents that are employed by Burger King feel about this. Way to throw them under the bus Sherrod.
Click to expand...

If he wants to blame the source, he'd resign. It is the democrats that push for higher and higher corporate taxes that are driving companies out of the country. I saw an article stating Burger King would save 20% on taxes by moving to Canada. So Sen Sherrod only has himself (and other democrats) to blame.
 
jonny5 said:
All marginal rates do is punish success with no return. Which is inherently unfair. Thats how we got to this point where 5% of the people are paying 60% of the income tax.
Click to expand...

and the top one percent control 35 percent of the wealth. they benefit the most from societal structure, and asking them to pay a higher marginal rate on income above a certain level is not unfair.
 
Like I said in a previous post - these progressives love to degrade these businesses but then are baffled when they pack their **** up and leave....

This whole situation clearly proves that progressives actually believe they own or even have the right to work for these companies while they degrade them in the process.

So It is quite obvious progressives actually believe they own these industries - as if the investor of job creator has some sort of an obligation to employ these ungrateful tools...

I'm extremely happy for Burger King moving - it's about time more businesses should do the same thing, oh and they have been in Illinois - they're packing their HQ's up and moving to more business friendly states and I cant blame them.

However, it is still funny to see these far left loons pretend that Burger King owes them something.
 
Helix said:
and the top one percent control 35 percent of the wealth. they benefit the most from societal structure, and asking them to pay a higher marginal rate on income above a certain level is not unfair.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt that....

You act like these "1%" have some sort of room that looks like Fort Knox and they're swimming in their money when in reality the majority of their wealth is wrapped up in other investments...

Sure some of these guys may be worth Billions but you can expect the majority of that money is tied up in other projects... I know quite a few people that are "well off" and you know what - everyting they own is on credit backed by their assets (some of which assets are also on credit)...

The financial game is a lot more complicated then you could possibly imagine.
 
Phoenix said:
Fox News Link


I am wondering how his constituents that are employed by Burger King feel about this. Way to throw them under the bus Sherrod.
Click to expand...

Another lefty sticking his nose where it does not belong....Corporations have the highes corporate taxes in the world in this country...Lower the taxes like the Republicans want to do maybe will change this happening.
 
Helix said:
and the top one percent control 35 percent of the wealth. they benefit the most from societal structure, and asking them to pay a higher marginal rate on income above a certain level is not unfair.
Click to expand...

Another lefty that begrudges a person being wealthy...Tell me my left wing friend have you ever been hired by a poor person?
 
What a lot of the layman don't understand is that the rich reinvest their money in other ventures..

It's not like they have millions in cash sitting around (some do) but only after they have become so successful...

This is something a lot of people don't understand.

Generally allot of these rich folks have nice things because they barrow against other assets.

The interesting part about that is that they really don't own those luxuries, if an investment or two fails then they have nothing - they lose it all depending how much equity they have in that item weather it be a house or a boat or a car..

That is one of the fundamental problems with being "wealthy" - the bank will take it all if you **** up.

I could write a thesis on this...

I have always said: buy your luxuries outright.. If you want something nice NEVER use collateral to buy it...

Also, the people you think are "rich" are way more poor than even you. Their liabilities far exceed their assets - especially in this economy - it's game over for a lot of them.
 
Phoenix said:
Fox News Link


I am wondering how his constituents that are employed by Burger King feel about this. Way to throw them under the bus Sherrod.
Click to expand...

I avoid Burger King because I like Wendy's much better but given that Sherrod Brown is pretty much a gaping asshole, I might have to change my preferences. when will douche bag parasites like Brown figure out that corporations have a duty to avoid as many taxes as possible rather than to remain in an inhospitable environment
 
Navy Pride said:
Another lefty that begrudges a person being wealthy...
Click to expand...

incorrect. i have no problem with anyone being wealthy, but i support a tiered marginal tax structure.

Navy Pride said:
Tell me my left wing friend have you ever been hired by a poor person?
Click to expand...

sure, many times for odd jobs. currently, i work in fundamental biochem research, which was funded by a grant until the sequestration. now i'm on a bridge grant, and could very well be out on my ass in 2015.
 
Navy Pride said:
Another lefty sticking his nose where it does not belong....Corporations have the highes corporate taxes in the world in this country...Lower the taxes like the Republicans want to do maybe will change this happening.
Click to expand...

Speaking of sticking things where they don't belong. Better to stick your nose up someones azz like a good Social Conservative.
 
mac said:
No, I said "according to law" which scotus decisions are.
Click to expand...

Not according to the constitution.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Click to expand...
 
Helix said:
and the top one percent control 35 percent of the wealth. they benefit the most from societal structure, and asking them to pay a higher marginal rate on income above a certain level is not unfair.
Click to expand...

I would argue the opposite, that they benefit the least from societal structure because they can afford to exist without it. If anything, society benefits most from them because they are the most productive. So they should be paying LESS tax. Whereas the poor benefit the most by receiving the services that taxes mostly fund. 80% of spending goes to income support.

And it is unfair because fairness means equal treatment. Taxing someone more than other is by definition unfair.
 
jonny5 said:
I would argue the opposite, that they benefit the least from societal structure because they can afford to exist without it. If anything, society benefits most from them because they are the most productive. So they should be paying LESS tax. Whereas the poor benefit the most by receiving the services that taxes mostly fund. 80% of spending goes to income support.

And it is unfair because fairness means equal treatment. Taxing someone more than other is by definition unfair.
Click to expand...

Their wealth is in dollars, which do not exist without society. Their commerce relies on infrastructure. And without society, the most wealthy are very vulnerable; they would have to spend more than they are paying in taxes just for security. The marginal rates are more than fair.
 
Helix said:
Their wealth is in dollars, which do not exist without society. Their commerce relies on infrastructure. And without society, the most wealthy are very vulnerable; they would have to spend more than they are paying in taxes just for security. The marginal rates are more than fair.
Click to expand...

Their wealth is in investments and assets. They dont actually have billions sitting in a mattress. And they can afford to take those investments elsewhere, as we see with Burger King. The only thing they really need from the US is justice and security, and they get the same amount as everyone else, even though they pay 1000x more for it. WHich is unfair.
 
jonny5 said:
Their wealth is in investments and assets.
Click to expand...

which is measured an imaginary currency, and is dependent on society and social order.

jonny5 said:
They dont actually have billions sitting in a mattress. And they can afford to take those investments elsewhere, as we see with Burger King.
Click to expand...

as i previously stated, the corporate tax should be cut, and we should tax individuals instead.

jonny5 said:
The only thing they really need from the US is justice and security, and they get the same amount as everyone else, even though they pay 1000x more for it. WHich is unfair.
Click to expand...

false. the concept of wealth itself is dependent on society and social order. if we had a starving, pissed off underclass who could not afford basic expenses and health care for their kids, the wealthy would be in big trouble very quickly. the rich also depend heavily on commerce, which is dependent on public infrastructure. so the very rich pay a higher user fee for these things, but only on the earnings above a certain threshold. it is more than a fair deal for them, and rates are historically low.
 
Helix said:
which is measured an imaginary currency, and is dependent on society and social order.



as i previously stated, the corporate tax should be cut, and we should tax individuals instead.



false. the concept of wealth itself is dependent on society and social order. if we had a starving, pissed off underclass who could not afford basic expenses and health care for their kids, the wealthy would be in big trouble very quickly. the rich also depend heavily on commerce, which is dependent on public infrastructure. so the very rich pay a higher user fee for these things, but only on the earnings above a certain threshold. it is more than a fair deal for them, and rates are historically low.
Click to expand...

Im tired of having the same argument. You want to live in a progressive commune, have at it. Luckily they havent yet made it illegal to flee. But theyre working on it.
 
jonny5 said:
Im tired of having the same argument. You want to live in a progressive commune, have at it.
Click to expand...

strawman / hyperbole.

jonny5 said:
Luckily they havent yet made it illegal to flee. But theyre working on it.
Click to expand...

more hyperbole. tax rates are historically low.

Historical_Mariginal_Tax_Rate_for_Highest_and_Lowest_Income_Earners.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom