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

FreshFish said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have to side with FF on this one. What did Ian Malcolm say? The rich will always find a way? I'm pretty sure that's it.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

dxmnkd316 said:
I have to side with FF on this one. What did Ian Malcolm say? The rich will always find a way? I'm pretty sure that's it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the more loopholes you close, the more they have to spend to evade. At some point the lines cross and it's cost-effective for them to just pay their freaking bills already.

However, we'll never effectively address tax evasion until all countries play by the same rules. It's like any form of piracy -- the solution is international law.
 
Last edited:
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Kepler said:
Yeah, but the more loopholes you close, the more they have to spend to evade. At some point the lines cross and it's cost-effective for them to just pay their freaking bills already.

However, we'll never effectively address tax evasion until all countries play by the same rules. It's like any form of piracy -- the solution is international law.
Click to expand...

Point taken.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Kepler said:
Yeah, but the more loopholes you close, the more they have to spend to evade.
Click to expand...

that's exactly why "loopholes" are never closed. they become a permanent source of campaign finance revenue: politicians threaten to close "loopholes," then get scads of campaign cash from those who would be affected, and the "loophole" remains open. That's why the mortgage interest deduction "loophole" likely never will be closed, the real estate industry has too much money and is too well-connected.

also, what you call a "loophole" is a perfectly reasonable tax incentive to someone else. Charitable contributions to hospitals, soup kitchens, and the like: is that really a "loophole"??




More fundamentally, it also depends upon a basic philosophical premise: does all money / property belong to the government, which deigns to allow us to keep some of it for personal use? or does money / property primarily belong to individuals and corporations, some of which is then taxed by government to fund its operation?
 
Last edited:
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

FreshFish said:
that's exactly why "loopholes" are never closed. they become a permanent source of campaign finance revenue: politicians threaten to close "loopholes," then get scads of campaign cash from those who would be affected, and the "loophole" remains open. That's why the mortgage interest deduction "loophole" likely never will be closed, the real estate industry has too much money and is too well-connected.

also, what you call a "loophole" is a perfectly reasonable tax incentive to someone else. Charitable contributions to hospitals, soup kitchens, and the like: is that really a "loophole"??




More fundamentally, it also depends upon a basic philosophical premise: does all money / property belong to the government, which deigns to allow us to keep some of it for personal use? or does money / property primarily belong to individuals and corporations, some of which is then taxed by government to fund its operation?
Click to expand...

Those are not the "loopholes" most people think of when they hear "loophole". It's the loopholes that are generally only known by those who can afford to pay an accountant or tax attorney who would know about them. Those are the loopholes I want closed.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

dxmnkd316 said:
Those are not the "loopholes" most people think of when they hear "loophole". It's the loopholes that are generally only known by those who can afford to pay an accountant or tax attorney who would know about them. Those are the loopholes I want closed.
Click to expand...
I do believe you're making his point for him, though. It's ther perception that it's only a loophole if I don't make use of that specific portion of the tax code.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

St. Clown said:
I do believe you're making his point for him, though. It's ther perception that it's only a loophole if I don't make use of that specific portion of the tax code.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But donations to the church are not loopholes. Since you're losing what? $0.67 for every $1.00 you donate? (I'm figuring highest marginal rate including state taxes.)
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

St. Clown said:
I do believe you're making his point for him, though. It's ther perception that it's only a loophole if I don't make use of that specific portion of the tax code.
Click to expand...

Sure, and all those companies taking advantage of the inversion part of the tax code are certainly on the up and up.

We've turned the tax code and Wall Street into a game that only the rich can win. Nothing wrong with that, right?
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

ScoobyDoo said:
Sure, and all those companies taking advantage of the inversion part of the tax code are certainly on the up and up.

We've turned the tax code and Wall Street into a game that only the rich can win. Nothing wrong with that, right?
Click to expand...
The tax inversion problem is a complicated one, politically and otherwise. To suggest it boils down to a few wealthy corporate fatcats paying off politicians to protect the practice seems a bit simplistic.

Everyone wanted a global economy, and now we've got it. The problem with that is the same one individual states in the U.S. have known about for years. You have to be careful how you tax, lest you become uncompetitive with your neighboring state.

The U.S. chooses to engage in a form of double taxation on it's corporations, and with control of the Senate and the Presidency by the Democrats, that's not likely to change. I don't see a big "repeal the corporate tax" platform in order to stop corporate inversions.

But absent that, we put corporations from our country at a distinct disadvantage to their competitors. So we have some hard choices to make as a country.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

SJHovey said:
The tax inversion problem is a complicated one, politically and otherwise. To suggest it boils down to a few wealthy corporate fatcats paying off politicians to protect the practice seems a bit simplistic.

Everyone wanted a global economy, and now we've got it. The problem with that is the same one individual states in the U.S. have known about for years. You have to be careful how you tax, lest you become uncompetitive with your neighboring state.

The U.S. chooses to engage in a form of double taxation on it's corporations, and with control of the Senate and the Presidency by the Democrats, that's not likely to change. I don't see a big "repeal the corporate tax" platform in order to stop corporate inversions.

But absent that, we put corporations from our country at a distinct disadvantage to their competitors. So we have some hard choices to make as a country.
Click to expand...

I would like to point out that in 2004 a bill was signed into law that effectively barred inversions. More or less. It shouldn't be that difficult of a decision.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

dxmnkd316 said:
I would like to point out that in 2004 a bill was signed into law that effectively barred inversions. More or less. It shouldn't be that difficult of a decision.
Click to expand...
Not sure how "effective" it was if we're still talking about it 10 years later.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

A thought-provoking article from 538 blog on the decline of summer jobs for teens.

Research has shown that teenagers — and especially teenage boys — who work are more likely to graduate high school, more likely to go to college and less likely to get into trouble with the law. They also gain valuable work experience that can make it easier to get a job and get promoted more quickly in adulthood. But for a variety of reasons — fewer job opportunities, more emphasis on schooling, changing societal expectations — fewer young people are getting summer jobs.

In the 1970s, more than half of teens ages 16 to 19 — and nearly two-thirds of boys in that age range — worked in the summer, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 2014, less than a third did so. The drop has been even more dramatic for 16- and 17-year-olds: Just 20 percent of them worked this summer, down from about 45 percent in the 1970s.

“If kids don’t work when they’re young, a lot of the behavioral traits that are important just don’t get developed down the road,” said Paul Harrington, an economist at Drexel University in Philadelphia who has studied the youth labor market. “These are the ages when you’re making these huge decisions about where you’re going to end up in life.”
Click to expand...
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Hmm....

the income for people who do not have jobs is not rising as fast as the income for people who do have jobs.

I suppose this is just coincidence?

The best way to increase incomes for people is for them to acquire useful job skills. Trying to make everyone poor doesn't seem to help much.

You don't seem to understand that politicians of all parties like to have rich people around: who else is going to contribute meaningful money to their never-ending campaigns to obtain and retain office?


Yet the fact that nearly every politican gets richer once in office doesn't seem to bother you at all.....

oh, right, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of narrow minds, that's your mantra, eh?
 
Last edited:
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

FreshFish said:
Hmm....

the income for people who do not have jobs is not rising as fast as the income for people who do have jobs.

I suppose this is just coincidence?

The best way to increase incomes for people is for them to acquire useful job skills. Trying to make everyone poor doesn't seem to help much.

You don't seem to understand that politicians of all parties like to have rich people around: who else is going to contribute meaningful money to their never-ending campaigns to obtain and retain office?


Yet the fact that nearly every politican gets richer once in office doesn't seem to bother you at all.....

oh, right, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of narrow minds, that's your mantra, eh?
Click to expand...

Wooooooooooooooosh.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

FreshFish said:
A thought-provoking article from 538 blog on the decline of summer jobs for teens.
Click to expand...
I bet there are a lot of reasons for this. I'm sure you'd hear arguments about the minimum wage, the poor economy forcing older workers to accept lower paying jobs, etc...

I was one of those teens who worked in the '70's. I did so for the usual reason -- to have money for gas, movies, etc...

But there was another factor. There really wasn't anything else to do then. There weren't any video games. We had three stations on the tv. I suppose you could go to the local bowling alley and play pinball. You either worked, or you hung out, and probably got in trouble.

Too many other options for teenagers today, including what has essentially become year round sports participation. That's my theory for a large part of the change.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

SJHovey said:
I bet there are a lot of reasons for this. I'm sure you'd hear arguments about the minimum wage, the poor economy forcing older workers to accept lower paying jobs, etc...

I was one of those teens who worked in the '70's. I did so for the usual reason -- to have money for gas, movies, etc...

But there was another factor. There really wasn't anything else to do then. There weren't any video games. We had three stations on the tv. I suppose you could go to the local bowling alley and play pinball. You either worked, or you hung out, and probably got in trouble.

Too many other options for teenagers today, including what has essentially become year round sports participation. That's my theory for a large part of the change.
Click to expand...

I agree. I was growing up in the 80's and even back then my mother made it clear she wasn't a taxi service. I could have a job or play a sport but no 7 nights of being carted around doing this or that. Parents these days seem a lot more willing to drive their kids to whatever they want to do, and often that doesn't involve having a job. Don't think the kids are lazy, more like overbooked.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

There's a line to be drawn. I think it's extremely important to make sure kids have a job as young as they can. Put them on a financial leash and make sure they understand the need to work hard to earn their money.

I started working as a ref for soccer when I was 12ish. I got hired at DQ when I was 15 (still worked as a ref). In college I worked at the dining hall and a chemistry computer lab while still going home on some of the weekends to work at DQ. For a couple years I had three jobs while taking chemical engineering coursework at one of the nation's top ChEn schools. It wasn't easy but it gave me a sense of work ethic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top