|
esquilax posted:You've missed the common libertarian argument that the anticipation of government bailouts led the banking industry to use riskier practices in the pursuit of profit. Is it necessarily a wrong statement to make? I thought moral hazard is considered a well-founded concept in economics and finance?
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2012 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
JamesJBuffalkill posted:It's an idea that I don't recall reading around D&D, which makes me a but skeptical. It seems that, at it's core, you would do away with corporate taxes and just more heavily tax the individuals that would receive the money. Could someone clarify? A much easier (and plausible) idea would be to eliminate the repatriation waiver which allows corporations to shield income earned (or, in many cases, not really earned but made to look like it) from being taxed by the US (that's a major reason why GE got a refund a year or two ago and many major corporations pay next to no taxes or even get refunds).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
Isn't Yglesias the idiot that doesn't know anything about capital gains and how they work (or, alternatively, don't)?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
Some douchebag posted:Yes, in a free market people can work together. But in a truly free market, they couldn't hide behind some "I didn't do that, the corporation did that!" bs. Uh, s/he does realize that one is always liable for their own torts and that the corporate shield doesn't protect individuals in the way he imagines is the case, right? quote:A human being built the car that had glue under the gas pedal. A human being designed it that way. A human being safety inspected it (alledgely) and a human being sold it. Those human beings should be held responsible for the results of their actions. Not hide behind some fictional "Entity" called a corporation. So he wants every individual to be joint and severally liable for unlimited liability so that, for example, a completely innocent partner in a General Partnership would be held liable for the actions of a partner that does dirty poo poo being his/her back (which actually happened quite a bit, particularly in the accounting, law and medical fields and ultimately led to the creation of the LLP and LLC as a result)? I mean, this guy is arguing that it's equitable to demand that individuals be able to mind control the other partners and not, you know, face the reality that it's a blockhead's dream. quote:The BP oil spill? That was a human who did that. A human being is resposible for that - NOT a "Corporation". Actually it's both the individuals and the corporate entity that were responsible for that (since the corporation is a legally distinct entity for tax and unlimited life purposes). quote:If there was a Free Market - along with Personal Responsibility (the other side of the "Yes, Mr. Obama, I really DID 'build that'." coin) - then you wouldn't need government interference. Standard laws that apply to any human being (don't kill, don't steal, don't harm, etc.) would still be around and enforcable. In fact, they'd be far more enforcable than they are today, because - as the law currently recognizes it - so much harm is done by "Corporations" who cannot be jailed, or killed, or punished in any way other than fines. But the individuals in the corporation can be (and sometimes are) held liable for their torts/crimes? Also, how exactly does the laws get enforced if there is no court system (given that the courts are part of a governmental system) or law enforcement mechanism? A Mad Max-style Thunderdome 'court'? I mean, it would literally have to be 'might makes right' since there would be no way to enforce any decrees against anyone that, for example, had the resources to fund a personal militia.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:"Roads will come into existence because the market wills them to, who are we to say we need roads?" is what I got out of it, which is fantastic. Sounds more like "Big business will, using the free market as its measuring stick, construct and run the roads by which commerce will go through."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
Femur posted:One can assume those problems would be exposed as the affected now have solid evidence for their grievances. So someone should be forced to either loss their job by leaving the job when they don't have clearance or get a fine/jail time? Why don't you just make it an electoral obstruction felony for the employers that don't allow employees to go vote? Seems like you'd be targeting the right parties involved rather than the poor that is completely hosed under your prescribed suggestion.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
So you're admitting that you're the personification of "gently caress You, Got Mine"? Cool.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:I can understand why you would take this position, but even at a 90% Income Tax rate for the highest tax brackets the Ultra Rich did not drop out of the workforce in droves. No - they instead used various shelters such as Foreign Personal Holding Companies to permanently avoid taxes until means such as the Subpart F income tax rules were put into place in an attempt to prevent them, which led to avoidance using yet other means. The same thing happens with estate and trust planning (such as using GRATs, Dynasty trusts, Family Limited Partnerships, etc). The good thing about being the top 1% is that you can afford tax accountants and attorneys who are generally one step ahead of the Treasury Department (and their state equivalents), so unless you pretty much remove all deductions, credits, favorable income treatment, etc, you will always have a tax gap.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You can't tax the rich because they'll just use tax shelters to get out of it, so we might as well be economically efficient and tax incomes over $400,000 at 0%. Given the amount the Treasury lost by allowing people to avoid both heavy civil and criminal charges after the UBS scandal with their Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program, I'd say so. I would have been impressed if they jeopardy levied all of the 1%ers assets rather than than giving them a reach-around due to regulatory capture, but hey, whatever. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sometimes politicians will give big corporations a handjob, so to remedy this situation we should...strap on a ball gag and let them go to town on our sweet asses? Hey man, if that's the way you like it, I'm not going to judge you over it. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:My argument is who effectively bears the burden of the gift tax, not about how to satisfy legal obligations. I concede that the legal obligation to ensure the tax is paid lies with the giver unless the recipient agrees to make the payment. Okay? We good now? Not really (see the transferee liability rules), although the IRS is bound by state laws on transferee liability which tends to favor the taxpayers unless there's more-or-less actual fraud going on. on the left posted:Life insurance is a popular way to avoid estate taxes Assuming you don't fall under the Section 2042 rules which clawback the FMV of the life insurance into the gross estate under certain circumstances. Horseshoe theory fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Oct 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2014 01:32
|
|