What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

joecct said:
Witness last night's execution in Arizona. The "feelers" are worried that it took 2 hrs. The "resultants" see that he's dead.
Click to expand...


One side thinks that, because it supports their position.

The other side thinks the "feelers" are happy because their vengeance has been satisfied, while the "resultants" see that it was a violation of the 8th Amendment.

"I'm rational; you're emotional." This has been used as a rhetorical tactic ever since Neanderthals fought over who wasn't doing their share of chores around the cave.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Inversions, what a load of ****e. I really hope congress finds a way to block these vile maneuvers in the future. You don't get the broad base of freedoms this country provides and then get to offshore your company. Let the caymans, irish, or dutch come to your defense when you **** up. I would also hope these companies are banned from making any political contributions should they close. This whole thing disgusts me because it leaves the stockholders footing the bill with capital gains taxes. The inversion forces holders to sell all stock they own and buy shares of the new holding company. What a shirking of their base fiduciary duty to their stockholders. It's a betrayal of their employees, the shareholders, and the taxpayers of this country.


Full disclosure: Apparently my dad was planning on leaving my brother and I quite a bit of money in stock. With one of these inversions I was told how much it is going to cost each of us. I was astounded since I had never discussed the topic of inheritance prior to this.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

dxmnkd316 said:
Inversions, what a load of ****e. I really hope congress finds a way to block these vile maneuvers in the future. You don't get the broad base of freedoms this country provides and then get to offshore your company. Let the caymans, irish, or dutch come to your defense when you **** up. I would also hope these companies are banned from making any political contributions should they close. This whole thing disgusts me because it leaves the stockholders footing the bill with capital gains taxes. The inversion forces holders to sell all stock they own and buy shares of the new holding company. What a shirking of their base fiduciary duty to their stockholders. It's a betrayal of their employees, the shareholders, and the taxpayers of this country.


Full disclosure: Apparently my dad was planning on leaving my brother and I quite a bit of money in stock. With one of these inversions I was told how much it is going to cost each of us. I was astounded since I had never discussed the topic of inheritance prior to this.
Click to expand...

That may fly (political contributions) as foreign citizens are prohibited from (legally) contributing to US political campaigns. Following the logic flowing from Dartmouth College to Citizens United one could logically conclude that the same prohibitions would apply to foreign corporations.

There is a crying need (again!) to reform the tax code. Trouble is, IMO, is that the "me's" are controlling the debate, not the "us's".
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Yeah, I'm all for putting a temporary (2-year, ending 12/31/2016) hold on all future inversions and all inversions going back to 1/1/2014.

That way we can work on reforming the corporate tax code. It will also be the first year of a new administration and congress so the election cycle will be less of a factor.

Personally, I kind of like Kepler's ideas in the PPACACPPACA thread. But I still think corporations, being people, should be taxed on all worldwide dollars made, like any other citizen, should the corporate tax continue. (Apologies for the world's clunkiest sentence.) Maybe cut the rate by 25-50% and make all dollars earned taxable. You'd do away with this repatriation nonsense and make sure corporations are paying for the "broad base of freedoms" they are provided here.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Curious if anyone else has been following the Market Basket shenanigans going on. I've been following it thru fark.com articles, and it's like something straight out of the robber baron days with some family feud thrown in.

It also strikes me as a pure case study in where modern day capitalism has gone off the rails.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

unofan said:
Curious if anyone else has been following the Market Basket shenanigans going on. I've been following it thru fark.com articles, and it's like something straight out of the robber baron days with some family feud thrown in.

It also strikes me as a pure case study in where modern day capitalism has gone off the rails.
Click to expand...

Here in Mass we've been following it and this has been going on for years with that family. You can pick your friends but not your family and all that. :eek:
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

unofan said:
Curious if anyone else has been following the Market Basket shenanigans going on. I've been following it thru fark.com articles, and it's like something straight out of the robber baron days with some family feud thrown in.

It also strikes me as a pure case study in where modern day capitalism has gone off the rails.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

Theoretically, could the customers and employees just unite to burn the company down, forcing the family to sell to the old CEO at pennies on the dollar? Seems like the best possible ending.

Stories like this are why we need a 99% estate tax.
 
Kepler said:
Interesting.

Theoretically, could the customers and employees just unite to burn the company down, forcing the family to sell to the old CEO at pennies on the dollar? Seems like the best possible ending.

Stories like this are why we need a 99% estate tax.
Click to expand...

But the well to do will employ legions of accountants and lawyers to circumvent the tax while Joe Farmer is screwed.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Kepler said:
Stories like this are why we need a 99% estate tax.
Click to expand...

Honestly, the estate tax as it's written now isn't terrible. It has a high limit, which is fine. I'd hate to see family vacation homes and farms being taken out of a family just because someone died and they can't afford the tax bills on it. It's especially true for some of the cabins up here in Minnesota. Some of them are worth hundreds of thousands just because lakefront property is expensive. I know a couple of families that wouldn't be able to afford the tax bill on it should their parents kick off. They've built the cabin themselves over a decade or more and have seen a fairly good bump in real estate values over the past 10-20 years.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

joecct said:
But the well to do will employ legions of accountants and lawyers to circumvent the tax while Joe Farmer is screwed.
Click to expand...

Sadly, this is probably true. Of course, there's always a 1789 remedy for that...
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

dxmnkd316 said:
Honestly, the estate tax as it's written now isn't terrible. It has a high limit, which is fine. I'd hate to see family vacation homes and farms being taken out of a family just because someone died and they can't afford the tax bills on it. It's especially true for some of the cabins up here in Minnesota. Some of them are worth hundreds of thousands just because lakefront property is expensive. I know a couple of families that wouldn't be able to afford the tax bill on it should their parents kick off. They've built the cabin themselves over a decade or more and have seen a fairly good bump in real estate values over the past 10-20 years.
Click to expand...
Those families need to talk to a property lawyer, pronto, to place the home in a family trust, so that when the parents pass away, the next generation simply assumes responsibility as the new trustees with no property changing hands. I have little sympathy for people who ignore perfectly good remedies and then complain that the laws are unfair. The laws are already set up so that people can avoid those tax bills - they just have to put in a modicum of effort to participate in the system.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

LynahFan said:
Those families need to talk to a property lawyer, pronto, to place the home in a family trust, so that when the parents pass away, the next generation simply assumes responsibility as the new trustees with no property changing hands. I have little sympathy for people who ignore perfectly good remedies and then complain that the laws are unfair. The laws are already set up so that people can avoid those tax bills - they just have to put in a modicum of effort to participate in the system.
Click to expand...

Dynastic trusts are being legislated away, slowly but surely (right Shirley?).
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Lol. He's going to lose more money doing this than he is from minimum wage hikes and just raising prices on everything by a couple cents.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

dxmnkd316 said:
Lol. He's going to lose more money doing this than he is from minimum wage hikes and just raising prices on everything by a couple cents.
Click to expand...

The thing is, that $0.35 charge is likely to cost consumers less than if he'd have increased the price of his menu. In most restaurants that aren't fast food, you see prices listed at the full or half dollar (.99, .95, .49, etc.), a general pricing tool used to both simplify things for consumers and restaurant owners alike. So he would have tacked on the extra $0.50 per item and people wouldn't have complained much. But now because he's ultimately saving them money with this single fee added on, some people are up in arms while others are cheering him. Ultimately, though, I doubt it will have much impact on his business overall.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

joecct said:
Dynastic trusts are being legislated away
Click to expand...

I'd be surprised if they were. The lobbyists are clever and well-connected and can disguise their true intent through technical sleight of hand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top