On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 11:41:20 -0700, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> wrote:> >On 2021/04/06 11:24 a.m., Don Y wrote: >> On 4/6/2021 10:09 AM, amdx wrote: >>> No one has mentioned that the corporation adds the taxes into it's >>> price so >>> �when you buy your Clorox. >> >> Exactly.� As property taxes are paid by *renters* (not property owners). >> And, the property owners usually benefit more from the services that those >> taxes provide (as their *building* is not likely to get up and move to >> a different town/state) >> >> Duties on Chinese imports come out of US customers' pockets.� It rarely >> moves business onto US companies' ledgers -- cuz they often raise their >> prices to follow the new "effective" price of their now penalized >> competitors. >> >> And, of course, they run the risk of market losses in other places as their >> product is now so much more "expensive"! >> >>> you are the one paying the corporate tax. If corporate taxes were >>> reduced to >>> �zero. there would be some huge profits made until competition settled >>> thing >>> �down to normal operations. >>> >>> I had a customer that had a business with employees, He paid the 6.2% >>> FICA tax share for the employees. >>> >>> When he retired his argument was that he should get a larger SS check >>> because he paid in over $1M in SS taxes. (his plus his employees 6.2%.) >> >> I make a similar argument to clients when they cringe at my hourly rate. >> They look at it as "salary" and compare it to what they "pay" *their* >> employees. >> >> "OK, and what about your share of their FICA?� And, unemployment insurance >> to cover for 'loss of business' layoffs?" >> >> "And, what about the ~10 paid holidays that you likely give them?� >And >> another 10+ days (for new hires) of paid vacation?� Any 'personal days'?" >> >> "What's your contribution to their health insurance?� And 401k?� Company >> christmas party?� Bonuses?" >> >> "What about their share of the rent, liability insurance, utilities?" >> >> Suddenly, the ~125K they're paying their employee (salary) looks like >> $250k!� And, their employees are "guaranteed" some work, tomorrow. >> >>> I could never convince him that if he and his competition didn't have >>> to pay >>> that 6.2%, that everyone's prices� would have come down and he would have >>> never seen that money. So it was a moot point. >> >> The same can be argued for "universal income".� Give everyone a base pay >> and prices will rise to consume it.� <shrug> >> >> People see/hear what they want to see/hear. >> >> I had a friend who was a staunch advocate for nationalized health care. >> He lived in an affluent area, had "all the best" doctors, etc.� I simply >> offered: >> >> "Of course, then ANYONE willing to drive to this area should be able >> to avail themselves of these (your!) best doctors!� Right?� And, there >> would be no DISincentive for those (your!) doctors to provide their >> services to these folks; even if it came at the cost of making it harder >> (less convenient) for YOU to get an appointment to see them!" >> >> "No, they should use the doctors in THEIR areas!" >> >> "Why?� Why wouldn't I want to have access to The Best?� After >all, >> my taxes are paying for healthcare regardless of where I *consume* it!" >> > >You don't live in a country with Universal Health Care so don't know >what you are talking about. Here in Canada people do not go bankrupt due >to medical bills, and have a longer lifespan than you do south of our >border. >We have Kaiser; fixed monthly fee no matter what. I smashed my shoulder skiing last month, had a non-Kaiser clinic visit with x-rays, and it cost me nothing.
OT Tax Rant
Started by ●April 6, 2021
Reply by ●April 6, 20212021-04-06
Reply by ●April 6, 20212021-04-06
On 4/6/2021 12:07 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:> In article <s4i90o$rpe$1@dont-email.me>, blockedofcourse@foo.invalid > says... >> >> I make a similar argument to clients when they cringe at my hourly rate. >> They look at it as "salary" and compare it to what they "pay" *their* >> employees. >> >> "OK, and what about your share of their FICA? And, unemployment insurance >> to cover for 'loss of business' layoffs?" >> >> "And, what about the ~10 paid holidays that you likely give them? And >> another 10+ days (for new hires) of paid vacation? Any 'personal days'?" >> >> "What's your contribution to their health insurance? And 401k? Company >> christmas party? Bonuses?" >> >> "What about their share of the rent, liability insurance, utilities?" >> >> Suddenly, the ~125K they're paying their employee (salary) looks like >> $250k! And, their employees are "guaranteed" some work, tomorrow. > > About 3 months after I retired the company wanted me to come back to > work for several months for a special project. Before I retired they > claimed they were giving almost as much in benifits as the wages. So IYup. Burdened rates are often 2-3x salary. Employees often fail to see this; they don't JUST "cost" the employer their wages. And, often don't see how low their productivity is. I've seen estimates that at least two hours per day per employee are "lost" (folks surfing the web, bathroom breaks, kabitzing, etc.). So, you only work ~11 months out of 12. And, of those 11, only work 6/8ths of them (i.e., net 8 months for 12 months of pay!)> asked for twice my wages as I was not getting any benifits. They did > not want to pay that, so I turned them down. I did not really want to > work any way as I was retired. I woud probably have lost some of my SS > pay if I did go back to work.I don't argue with potential clients about pay. "Hey, YOU came looking for *me*! *I'm* not the one with a problem to solve!" What's amusing is when they go looking for alternatives -- sometimes even FINDING one (who turns out to be a disaster!) -- and then come back thinking you've been sitting by the phone, just waiting for their call... "Sorry, I don't have any time to sell, at the moment. I've taken on another project what will keep me tied up for quite some time." (of course, their "problem" can't wait, so... keep looking for yet another solution -- and hope that one works out for you!) Likewise, on the completion of a project, they'll likely have another that they want you to start on: "Sorry, I've already picked my next project." "But, you're working for me!" "No, I did THAT PROJECT for you. I don't recall any language in the contract where you offered me a guarantee of continued work/income. Wasn't that part of the appeal of outsourcing the project? That you didn't have to staff up to complete it? Did you not think that I wouldn't be thinking about 'what comes next' as I knew I was nearing the end of MY COMMITMENT TO YOU? Even if I knew you wanted me to stay on, how do I know I'd be interested in the project you'd offer? OTOH, if I start looking at projects early, I have greater choice in what I do... what I *want* to do!" <shakes head> As usual, folks wanting things both ways!
Reply by ●April 6, 20212021-04-06
On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 11:38:39 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:> https://theweek.com/articles/975735/janet-yellens-proposal-revolutionize-corporate-taxation > > My counter-offer to Yellin is zero corporate tax rates.Germany has probably the highest tax rate to be found anywhere, and their business is booming. I like how they classify a business with over $1B sales annual as cottage industry. It's called mittelstand and comprises a big part of their economic output. The core feature is they actually make "stuff." There's something to be said for making stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelstand https://www.expatica.com/de/finance/taxes/corporate-tax-in-germany-108106/> > > > -- > > John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc > > The best designs are necessarily accidental.
Reply by ●April 6, 20212021-04-06
On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 15:07:14 -0400, Ralph Mowery <rmowery42@charter.net> wrote:>In article <s4i90o$rpe$1@dont-email.me>, blockedofcourse@foo.invalid >says... >> >> I make a similar argument to clients when they cringe at my hourly rate. >> They look at it as "salary" and compare it to what they "pay" *their* >> employees. >> >> "OK, and what about your share of their FICA? And, unemployment insurance >> to cover for 'loss of business' layoffs?" >> >> "And, what about the ~10 paid holidays that you likely give them? And >> another 10+ days (for new hires) of paid vacation? Any 'personal days'?" >> >> "What's your contribution to their health insurance? And 401k? Company >> christmas party? Bonuses?" >> >> "What about their share of the rent, liability insurance, utilities?" >> >> Suddenly, the ~125K they're paying their employee (salary) looks like >> $250k! And, their employees are "guaranteed" some work, tomorrow. >> >> >> > >About 3 months after I retired the company wanted me to come back to >work for several months for a special project. Before I retired they >claimed they were giving almost as much in benifits as the wages. So I >asked for twice my wages as I was not getting any benifits. They did >not want to pay that, so I turned them down. I did not really want to >work any way as I was retired. I woud probably have lost some of my SS >pay if I did go back to work. > >The pattern is typical. Big companies RIF the old-timers and have to hire them back as consultants, at roughly 2x the salary. We "pimp" for some such consultants, pay them as pass-throughs to make it look better.
Reply by ●April 6, 20212021-04-06
On 4/6/2021 2:50 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:> bitrex wrote: >> On 4/6/2021 12:12 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote: >>> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in >>> news:7ff76f0d-bacd-de94-8559-e8cc0a499618@electrooptical.net: >>> >>>> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> https://theweek.com/articles/975735/janet-yellens-proposal-revolut >>>>> ionize-corporate-taxation >>>>> >>>>> My counter-offer to Yellin is zero corporate tax rates. >>>> >>>> Why not reincorporate as an LLC? >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Phil Hobbs >>>> >>> >>> That would certainly limit his liabilities. >>> >> >> My first reaction to the text of a large number of contract work >> solicitations/proposals I see by Somecompany, LLC is "Well I see why >> they're limiting their liabilities." > > Such as Amazon LLC? >Oh, for the days when "We're going to sell stuff people want to buy - on the Internet" or just "We're going to do X...but on the Internet" was considered a ground-breaking concept. Seems almost quaint, now...
Reply by ●April 6, 20212021-04-06
On 06/04/2021 21:01, John Larkin wrote:> On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 20:12:32 +0200, David Brown > <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> On 06/04/2021 17:38, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>> >>> https://theweek.com/articles/975735/janet-yellens-proposal-revolutionize-corporate-taxation >>> >>> My counter-offer to Yellin is zero corporate tax rates. >>> >> >> Why not start your own religion, like L. Ron Hubbard? He too had lots >> of fanciful ideas with no grounding in reality, and felt he didn't make >> enough money from his normal work. Someone suggested he started his own >> religion - no restrictions on what you can say and do, no taxes, no >> limits. Tell the tax man you believe electronics works by trapping >> little pixies inside boxes, and you'll get state subsidies and can start >> your own university in Alabama. >> > > If creating businesses and jobs and food and stuff is religion, I'm a > believer. >I had hoped it was obvious that I was joking - mocking the absurdity of the support the USA (and many other countries) have for anything as long as it is called a "religion". (Though this is exactly why Hubbard started Scientology - it was a scam to make money.)> Tax consumption, not production. There's nothing mystical about that. >Usually you (i.e., a country) get best results from taxing a range of things, avoiding taxing any of the them too much or too little. If you concentrate taxation too tightly, people will just find more ways to avoid paying it. Crucially, you have to figure a way to make people feel the taxation is approximately fair, and the returns they get for their taxes are approximately fair (while realising that people's idea of "fair" are often wildly different).
Reply by ●April 6, 20212021-04-06
On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 22:01:47 +0200, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:>On 06/04/2021 21:01, John Larkin wrote: >> On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 20:12:32 +0200, David Brown >> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> >>> On 06/04/2021 17:38, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>> >>>> https://theweek.com/articles/975735/janet-yellens-proposal-revolutionize-corporate-taxation >>>> >>>> My counter-offer to Yellin is zero corporate tax rates. >>>> >>> >>> Why not start your own religion, like L. Ron Hubbard? He too had lots >>> of fanciful ideas with no grounding in reality, and felt he didn't make >>> enough money from his normal work. Someone suggested he started his own >>> religion - no restrictions on what you can say and do, no taxes, no >>> limits. Tell the tax man you believe electronics works by trapping >>> little pixies inside boxes, and you'll get state subsidies and can start >>> your own university in Alabama. >>> >> >> If creating businesses and jobs and food and stuff is religion, I'm a >> believer. >> > >I had hoped it was obvious that I was joking - mocking the absurdity of >the support the USA (and many other countries) have for anything as long >as it is called a "religion". (Though this is exactly why Hubbard >started Scientology - it was a scam to make money.) > >> Tax consumption, not production. There's nothing mystical about that. >> > >Usually you (i.e., a country) get best results from taxing a range of >things, avoiding taxing any of the them too much or too little. If you >concentrate taxation too tightly, people will just find more ways to >avoid paying it.Avoid corporate taxes by buying Chinese.>Crucially, you have to figure a way to make people >feel the taxation is approximately fair, and the returns they get for >their taxes are approximately fair (while realising that people's idea >of "fair" are often wildly different).That's the problem, seeming "fair" instead of doing what's best for the people. When I hear "fair share" I know an idiot is talking. Corporate taxation is mostly envy. That makes no sense, since corporations don't have feelings. The new drive for unified international corporate tax rates is an admission that, as long as companies and countries compete, the best corporate rates are low to zero. The world government fans hate competition, partly because it dilutes their power, and partly because it makes them look stupid.
Reply by ●April 6, 20212021-04-06
On 4/6/2021 4:01 PM, David Brown wrote:> On 06/04/2021 21:01, John Larkin wrote: >> On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 20:12:32 +0200, David Brown >> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> >>> On 06/04/2021 17:38, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>> >>>> https://theweek.com/articles/975735/janet-yellens-proposal-revolutionize-corporate-taxation >>>> >>>> My counter-offer to Yellin is zero corporate tax rates. >>>> >>> >>> Why not start your own religion, like L. Ron Hubbard? He too had lots >>> of fanciful ideas with no grounding in reality, and felt he didn't make >>> enough money from his normal work. Someone suggested he started his own >>> religion - no restrictions on what you can say and do, no taxes, no >>> limits. Tell the tax man you believe electronics works by trapping >>> little pixies inside boxes, and you'll get state subsidies and can start >>> your own university in Alabama. >>> >> >> If creating businesses and jobs and food and stuff is religion, I'm a >> believer. >> > > I had hoped it was obvious that I was joking - mocking the absurdity of > the support the USA (and many other countries) have for anything as long > as it is called a "religion". (Though this is exactly why Hubbard > started Scientology - it was a scam to make money.) > >> Tax consumption, not production. There's nothing mystical about that. >> > > Usually you (i.e., a country) get best results from taxing a range of > things, avoiding taxing any of the them too much or too little. If you > concentrate taxation too tightly, people will just find more ways to > avoid paying it. Crucially, you have to figure a way to make people > feel the taxation is approximately fair, and the returns they get for > their taxes are approximately fair (while realising that people's idea > of "fair" are often wildly different). >Letting corporations live large and do whatever they want, while having the religious police and regular police up your ass everywhere you go and sending a bajillion dollars a year of the public's money to the military to buy defective toys, plays well in America. Hell, some people even call it "freedom."
Reply by ●April 6, 20212021-04-06
On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 15:52:06 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:>On 4/6/2021 2:50 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote: >> bitrex wrote: >>> On 4/6/2021 12:12 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote: >>>> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in >>>> news:7ff76f0d-bacd-de94-8559-e8cc0a499618@electrooptical.net: >>>> >>>>> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://theweek.com/articles/975735/janet-yellens-proposal-revolut >>>>>> ionize-corporate-taxation >>>>>> >>>>>> My counter-offer to Yellin is zero corporate tax rates. >>>>> >>>>> Why not reincorporate as an LLC? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> Phil Hobbs >>>>> >>>> >>>> �� That would certainly limit his liabilities. >>>> >>> >>> My first reaction to the text of a large number of contract work >>> solicitations/proposals I see by Somecompany, LLC is "Well I see why >>> they're limiting their liabilities." >> >> Such as Amazon LLC? >> > >Oh, for the days when "We're going to sell stuff people want to buy - on >the Internet" or just "We're going to do X...but on the Internet" was >considered a ground-breaking concept. > >Seems almost quaint, now...You can drive 20 miles to an Office Depot and park and hope they have the thing you need. Or go to Amazon who very likely will have it, and get it delivered.
Reply by ●April 6, 20212021-04-06
On 4/6/2021 2:02 PM, bitrex wrote:> Letting corporations live large and do whatever they want, while having the > religious police and regular police up your ass everywhere you go and sending a > bajillion dollars a year of the public's money to the military to buy defective > toys, plays well in America. Hell, some people even call it "freedom.""Corporations are people". Why should one group of "people" not have to pay taxes while others do? Perhaps we should eliminate some of the *rights* those "people" have as we reduce their tax burden? Amusing that a human person commits a crime (e.g., something leading to loss of life) and he goes to prison. His freedom is taken from him. Corporate person does so and he gets fined. Perhaps their business license should be taken from them for a suitable period -- to curtail their freedom? They just can't conduct any business (pay any employees!) for the duration of that "suspension". Or, alternatively, allow human persons to PAY for their crimes in cash, instead of prison time? I wonder how well *that* idea will go over? :>
