FedEx, Taxes, and Paying for Infrastructure

[C-south]

You don't believe the tax burden should be shared fairly?
That's odd.

Do you believe it’s “fair” that over half don’t pay a dime and get free money instead from actual taxpayers?

 

[luthervol]

Yes it is. All costs of a company are paid by their customers. If part of those costs are a luxury box for client or employee entertainment that’s up to them and if they are public their stock holders. You aren’t going to affect their choice of having that box by raising taxes nor are you going to get the money for paying for that box as taxes instead.

As usual your example is stupid and not applicable.

lol.......
Have you recovered from the beat down you took in the other thread about 2a? It was wonderous to behold.

Once again, you completely miss the point. Consumers pay, be it taxes for road improvements or increased prices for luxury suites and golden parachutes. The issue is what the money you pay is being used for.

 

[C-south]

Name the companies that run at a loss every year.

Or give “bonuses” to their worst “employees”.

 

[allvol123]

Or give “bonuses” to their worst “employees”.

According to @luthervol taxes stimulate the economy. So we should just tax at 100%!

 

[NorthDallas40]

lol.......
Have you recovered from the beat down you took in the other thread about 2a? It was wonderous to behold.

Once again, you completely miss the point. Consumers pay, be it taxes for road improvements or increased prices for luxury suites and golden parachutes. The issue is what the money you pay is being used for.

LMFAO you and RT are kindred idiot spirits I’m truly crushed on your take of the debate .

And no that’s your issue, or should I say your narrative of “well look at this waste, instead of wasting it let’s take it from them and do something we deem useful”. Just more rationalization for theft and wealth redistribution

 

[NorthDallas40]

According to @luthervol taxes stimulate the economy. So we should just tax at 100%!

That is indeed his endgame. The gubmint will provide

 

[McDad]

And the $500,000 luxury boxes and $100,000 golf club memberships are also perks needed to secure the best talent. I don't totally buy that, and I certainly don't like it, but I get it.........just like with taxes. The consumer ends up funding spending they don't agree with that goes to people they feel shouldn't be getting the help.

There are a couple of significant issues with your comparisons I would like to share with you. This isn't to call you out by any means. I simply want you to consider what I have to say. Normal routine in the PF is to dig in and continue to hold tight to our posts and you will ultimately decide if you do or do not want to go that route in this case.
Issue #1:
I work with business owners everyday is my business. Most business owners who are given the news from their CPA that their tax burden is X, but that money could be used to buy equipment, cars, etc will spend the money rather than giving it over in taxes. Rationale is, if they are going to be out the money, they might as well upgrade, invest, or create a perk for their business, employees, themselves, or customers. So the issue is, the money spent on those luxury boxes and golf memberships is passed on to the consumer whether the business is paying it to Uncle Sam or to the local sports franchise. You can ask the posters here what they do when faced with sending money to DC or putting back in their own business. I estimate almost 100% will use it as opposed to handing it over to the government.
Issue #2:
When I buy products or services, cost is one of many considerations. Companies aggressively compete against each other at the point of sale. When corp1 is spending money frivolously and passing it on to the consumer and corp2 is not and passing the reduced cost to the consumer, the consumer decides which to do business with. In this way both companies are free to choose the expenses they deem necessary to make the sale, and the consumer is free to decide which is the better "value" at that moment. When the tax increases, both corp1 and corp2 have an expense which cannot be avoided (it can with our tax code but keeping this explanation super simple for now). Both companies pass the additional expense to the consumer. Instead of me saving a dollar on paper towels because corp2 was better at producing the towels at reduced cost compared to corp1, both paper towels are now increased.

If your goal is to actually increase money to the government, the only proven way in our tax code to do that is to increase GDP. If that isn't your method of choice, you must drastically overhaul our tax code. There isn't enough politicians who favor changing the code because they all benefit from how it is written by taking advantage of the write offs, offsets, deferments, etc. which exist.

 

[luthervol]

According to @luthervol taxes stimulate the economy. So we should just tax at 100%!

That would be stupid. That's like saying reducing taxes stimulates the economy so therefore there should be zero taxes.

 

[Vol737]

That would be stupid. That's like saying reducing taxes stimulates the economy so therefore there should be zero taxes.

Omg.

 

[allvol123]

That would be stupid. That's like saying reducing taxes stimulates the economy so therefore there should be zero taxes.

I would certainly poor more money into the economy if their were 0 taxes. And hire more people.

 

[McDad]

I'm good with a fair and equitable sharing of the tax burden.
Job creators.

If the method and process to achieve fair an equitable isn't universal, is it really fair and equitable?
For example, F&E (not franchise and excise tax, btw) may mean to increase the burden on those who have more. Fair could be they pay more simply because they have the ability and that increase can help offset what another who has less cannot pay.
As a teacher, you understand how important attendance is. In fact, I understand in my area funding is tied to attendance/enrollment. The school system watches attendance like a hawk to protect funding.
So, here is where the concept of fairness as a universal standard comes to bear. Fairness to ask those who can pay more because they can afford it and less from others have less to pay, would never be applied in the classroom. You wouldn't pull days attended from students who had absences to spare and apply those day attended to students who were over the limit on absences and at risk of repeating the grade. We wouldn't do this even though it mimics the justification for doing so with taxes.

 

[C-south]

There are a couple of significant issues with your comparisons I would like to share with you. This isn't to call you out by any means. I simply want you to consider what I have to say. Normal routine in the PF is to dig in and continue to hold tight to our posts and you will ultimately decide if you do or do not want to go that route in this case.
Issue #1:
I work with business owners everyday is my business. Most business owners who are given the news from their CPA that their tax burden is X, but that money could be used to buy equipment, cars, etc will spend the money rather than giving it over in taxes. Rationale is, if they are going to be out the money, they might as well upgrade, invest, or create a perk for their business, employees, themselves, or customers. So the issue is, the money spent on those luxury boxes and golf memberships is passed on to the consumer whether the business is paying it to Uncle Sam or to the local sports franchise. You can ask the posters here what they do when faced with sending money to DC or putting back in their own business. I estimate almost 100% will use it as opposed to handing it over to the government.
Issue #2:
When I buy products or services, cost is one of many considerations. Companies aggressively compete against each other at the point of sale. When corp1 is spending money frivolously and passing it on to the consumer and corp2 is not and passing the reduced cost to the consumer, the consumer decides which to do business with. In this way both companies are free to choose the expenses they deem necessary to make the sale, and the consumer is free to decide which is the better "value" at that moment. When the tax increases, both corp1 and corp2 have an expense which cannot be avoided (it can with our tax code but keeping this explanation super simple for now). Both companies pass the additional expense to the consumer. Instead of me saving a dollar on paper towels because corp2 was better at producing the towels at reduced cost compared to corp1, both paper towels are now increased.

If your goal is to actually increase money to the government, the only proven way in our tax code to do that is to increase GDP. If that isn't your method of choice, you must drastically overhaul our tax code. There isn't enough politicians who favor changing the code because they all benefit from how it is written by taking advantage of the write offs, offsets, deferments, etc. which exist.

Our tax code is severely broken but luther will gladly pay whatever just as long as you have to as well.

 

[luthervol]

There are a couple of significant issues with your comparisons I would like to share with you. This isn't to call you out by any means. I simply want you to consider what I have to say. Normal routine in the PF is to dig in and continue to hold tight to our posts and you will ultimately decide if you do or do not want to go that route in this case.
Issue #1:
I work with business owners everyday is my business. Most business owners who are given the news from their CPA that their tax burden is X, but that money could be used to buy equipment, cars, etc will spend the money rather than giving it over in taxes. Rationale is, if they are going to be out the money, they might as well upgrade, invest, or create a perk for their business, employees, themselves, or customers. So the issue is, the money spent on those luxury boxes and golf memberships is passed on to the consumer whether the business is paying it to Uncle Sam or to the local sports franchise. You can ask the posters here what they do when faced with sending money to DC or putting back in their own business. I estimate almost 100% will use it as opposed to handing it over to the government.
Issue #2:
When I buy products or services, cost is one of many considerations. Companies aggressively compete against each other at the point of sale. When corp1 is spending money frivolously and passing it on to the consumer and corp2 is not and passing the reduced cost to the consumer, the consumer decides which to do business with. In this way both companies are free to choose the expenses they deem necessary to make the sale, and the consumer is free to decide which is the better "value" at that moment. When the tax increases, both corp1 and corp2 have an expense which cannot be avoided (it can with our tax code but keeping this explanation super simple for now). Both companies pass the additional expense to the consumer. Instead of me saving a dollar on paper towels because corp2 was better at producing the towels at reduced cost compared to corp1, both paper towels are now increased.

If your goal is to actually increase money to the government, the only proven way in our tax code to do that is to increase GDP. If that isn't your method of choice, you must drastically overhaul our tax code. There isn't enough politicians who favor changing the code because they all benefit from how it is written by taking advantage of the write offs, offsets, deferments, etc. which exist.

I understand the points you are making.
I know plenty of people working in mega corporations, small corporations, state, local, and federal governments. I trust my perspective on how money is used and who benefits. I see waste and poor decisions in all areas.
The only sector where I see little to no waste is small business.

 

[McDad]

Our tax code is severely broken but luther will gladly pay whatever just as long as you have to as well.

That's true but entirely true. Some want everyone to pay more. Most (all???) of those will also take a deduction...like for mortgage interest...when others, like renters, are not offered that loophole.

 

[allvol123]

Luther trusts his perspective with your money. Lol.

 

[Rickyvol77]

lol.......
Have you recovered from the beat down you took in the other thread about 2a? It was wonderous to behold.

Once again, you completely miss the point. Consumers pay, be it taxes for road improvements or increased prices for luxury suites and golden parachutes. The issue is what the money you pay is being used for.

except one the consumer CHOOSES to pay, the other is taken at threat of jail at gunpoint

 

[McDad]

I understand the points you are making.
I know plenty of people working in mega corporations, small corporations, state, local, and federal governments. I trust my perspective on how money is used and who benefits. I see waste and poor decisions in all areas.
The only sector where I see little to no waste is small business.

Poll the members here. RavinDave, hog, Clearwater, LG, huff, vfh...all the folks who are self employed or in corporate america. ask them what they do at tax time when faced with the option of sending 50k to DC or 50k on a vehicle used in their business.

This isn't waste. This isn't poor decisions. The money is out the door either way. This is the crux of your comparison and it actually illustrates the best decision and most responsible decision.

 

[Tastylicks]

Infrastructure investment was promised by the last president. He failed and the new president is just finding a way to deliver and pay for it

 

[McDad]

Our tax code is severely broken but luther will gladly pay whatever just as long as you have to as well.

Also, those people just like Luther did a few weeks ago will be vocal when their taxes increase if they think it is tied to the 'bad' politician. Once they were reminded the increase to their share was due to Clinton, they weren't nearly as vocal.

 

[luthervol]

If the method and process to achieve fair an equitable isn't universal, is it really fair and equitable?
For example, F&E (not franchise and excise tax, btw) may mean to increase the burden on those who have more. Fair could be they pay more simply because they have the ability and that increase can help offset what another who has less cannot pay.
As a teacher, you understand how important attendance is. In fact, I understand in my area funding is tied to attendance/enrollment. The school system watches attendance like a hawk to protect funding.
So, here is where the concept of fairness as a universal standard comes to bear. Fairness to ask those who can pay more because they can afford it and less from others have less to pay, would never be applied in the classroom. You wouldn't pull days attended from students who had absences to spare and apply those day attended to students who were over the limit on absences and at risk of repeating the grade. We wouldn't do this even though it mimics the justification for doing so with taxes.

We ask students who are able to attend every day to help those students coming back after 14 days of being contact traced.
We provide students who are "homebound" because of illness or injury a homebound teacher for three sessions a week - at the expense of other students. The homebound teacher is taking funds that could have been used on the students in attendance.

 

[luthervol]

Our tax code is severely broken but luther will gladly pay whatever just as long as you have to as well.

I'm all for improving the tax code.

 

[luthervol]

Poll the members here. RavinDave, hog, Clearwater, LG, huff, vfh...all the folks who are self employed or in corporate america. ask them what they do at tax time when faced with the option of sending 50k to DC or 50k on a vehicle used in their business.

This isn't waste. This isn't poor decisions. The money is out the door either way. This is the crux of your comparison and it actually illustrates the best decision and most responsible decision.

Of course they will purchase the vehicle, as they should.
That's a little different than a luxury box or a 15 million dollar golden parachute.

 

[McDad]

We ask students who are able to attend every day to help those students coming back after 14 days of being contact traced.
We provide students who are "homebound" because of illness or injury a homebound teacher for three sessions a week - at the expense of other students. The homebound teacher is taking funds that could have been used on the students in attendance.

Does the principal or the school board create policy to remove attendances from students who have more (after all, they don't need them and they can spare them easily) and transfer those attendances to students who don't have enough?

 

[Rickyvol77]

Of course they will purchase the vehicle, as they should.
That's a little different than a luxury box or a 15 million dollar golden parachute.

If it's for their business and THEIR decision, who are you to judge what they spend it on

 

[McDad]

Of course they will purchase the vehicle, as they should.
That's a little different than a luxury box or a 15 million dollar golden parachute.

How so? The purchase amount increases. The thing purchased changes. But so does the amount of money in consideration and the number of people making the decision. But the small one-person business and the gargantuan mega corp are coming to the same conclusion.

The only difference is one has your respect and the other has your disdain (my words, not yours, and solely based on my opinion from this current conversation.