What if there is no water within, say, 100 miles... is it still my "right"? Who is forced to bring it to me? Why isn't that a violation of their rights?
If that's true, then it is because it is a granted right - there's no way you just have this inherent right to drinkable water no matter where you live. That's making a demand upon others - infringing upon their intrinsic rights.
Right, I'm pointing that you used two "survivors" as counter-examples to survivorship bias. To attack this scientifically, you would need to analyze an entire population of people and examine both their qualities and circumstances. You can't criticize someone's anecdotal argument as anecdotal, then counter with another anecdote.
Yes, the article is also cherry-picking. But that doesn't mean studying only the successful business people isn't a great example of survivorship bias. Notice that you picked Andrew Carnegie and Sam Walton instead of Andrew Carnegie's neighbor and Sam Walton's classmate.
But the point remains - you don't need to be a "Professional Engineer" in the US to be an engineer. They even make the distinction on their own website:
What makes a PE different from an engineer?
In the US, only about 20% of engineers have some kind of a professional license (including a PE).
Yeah, I'm in manufacturing (currently the R&D side, but involved a little more with production in the past when we still made things in the US). Not a PE in the whole building. My dad does civil stuff - they all have PEs. Building guys (structural, mechanical systems, electrical, etc) all have PEs.
Anyway, the point remains - a PE is above and beyond an engineer in the US. You are still an engineer without a PE, just not a "Professional Engineer".
You don't need to become a PE in the US. In fact, it is highly unusual unless you are signing off on certain documents. I took the exam straight out of school, but in my company of hundreds of engineers only one is a PE - and he works for facilities! So I don't have my PE because there is a apprenticeship requirement that I can't meet. (Technically there is a way around that requirement, but it's simply not worth the effort.)
You can't win that battle. Corporations can afford massive finance organizations that will outmaneuver any government. The tax rate for corporations in the US is 34-35%. The EFFECTIVE tax rate in the US is 13-14%. Put it in the individual domain where an entire division of every corporation is not working against you. The only reason we allow corporations is efficiency - don't use that efficiency against yourself.
First of all, when you say "perfectly legal", that means today. It doesn't need to be tomorrow.
Take borrowing. Go ahead and borrow against it and get ridiculously low interest rates. As you pay back the loan, you will need to draw money from somewhere, and that money will be taxed as income.
I'm proposing this with clear eyes. I know it would be difficult. But the criticisms you launch my way exist in the current system and there is no magic bullet. I just wanted to make it clear that my goal is not to lower taxes or let people who own corporations off the hook. Quite the contrary - I want to shut down the corporate tax-dodging departments where some of the smartest people in the world are currently being employed simply to find loopholes. No government can go up against that in the long term and come out ahead.
Worse, they are sitting on billions held outside the country. Better to bring them in, which my system would encourage. I don't really care if they sit on a cash pile (or on short-term assets)... that means someone else in the economy can use it.
Whats to stop the owner of the corp from eating corp owned food, using the corp owned jet, driving the corp owned sports car, and living in the corp owned house.
Changes in tax law making those taxable compensation. As I said, closing the loopholes.
I'm not pretending that this would fix every abuse of the current system, so don't pooh-pooh it just because it's not perfect. Any fix you make to the current system can still be applied to the zero-tax-rate system.
the corporations would own and pay for everything else.
Like what? A place to live? That is taxable compensation. A car? That is taxable compensation. Food? Taxable compensation. You don't just leave the current rules in place and reduce taxes - you tax money on the way out of the corporation.
If want to go on vacation? My corporation sends me to Paris, for business meetings, meeting potential vendors, or looking at possible expansion sites.
Who cares? They do that right now under the current system. Why does my system get held to a standard that the current system does not? Anything you do to fix this in the current system can be applied to my proposal.
Their groceries are part of the business. Their car and house part of the business. And suddenly nobody pays income tax at all.
What? How?
Wealthy people that can hire creative attorneys already live this lifestyle.
Yes, I'm trying to but a huge dent in that industry.
When you change the rules to make that process easier or even more lucrative,
What process? Do what? If you take any money out of a corporation, it will get taxed as income. If you want to buy groceries, you take $100 out of your corporation, pay your $25 in taxes, and then buy your groceries. If you want to buy a yacht, you take $10,000,000 out of the corporation and pay $2,500,000 in taxes and then buy your yacht.
it becomes better for companies to hold on to cash
Yes, but this is a short-term problem. Eventually every stock holder dies... and the people with the most stock are old.
It also creates an incentive for a person to incorporate as some kind of sole-proprietorship that can avoid paying taxes on profits instead of recording that income as personal income.
But profits would eventually need to be drawn out of the entity.
but what's to stop someone from creating a small business that happens to be completely employee owned that attempts to do the same thing?
If the employees ever plan on spending their money, it will get taxed.
I'm not sure the side effect of essentially not taxing savings every year is a bad thing. It's effectively like an IRA.
I could go along with this for dividends, but for capital gains, I'd want the gain "taxed at normal income tax rates" to be adjusted for inflation over the period the assets were held. Same with interest income.
I don't have an immediate objection to that. You don't want to dissuade people from long-term investment in assets. The numbers would have to work out, and I'd point out that we don't do this today.
I'd like the opposite direction - remove corporate taxes altogether and instead tax capital gains (and the special dividend) at normal income tax rates. Adjust rates and loopholes to fill any revenue holes. Sure, thousands of accountants and tax lawyers would suddenly be looking for work - but it would destroy this kind of thing. And it would make the US into a very attractive site for any multinational.
Slashdot Mirror
"Life" is the very first inalienable right. Your argument is a straw man.
What if there is no water within, say, 100 miles... is it still my "right"? Who is forced to bring it to me? Why isn't that a violation of their rights?
So... where does it mention "access to water"?
Access to water is a human right.
If that's true, then it is because it is a granted right - there's no way you just have this inherent right to drinkable water no matter where you live. That's making a demand upon others - infringing upon their intrinsic rights.
Right, I'm pointing that you used two "survivors" as counter-examples to survivorship bias. To attack this scientifically, you would need to analyze an entire population of people and examine both their qualities and circumstances. You can't criticize someone's anecdotal argument as anecdotal, then counter with another anecdote.
Yes, the article is also cherry-picking. But that doesn't mean studying only the successful business people isn't a great example of survivorship bias. Notice that you picked Andrew Carnegie and Sam Walton instead of Andrew Carnegie's neighbor and Sam Walton's classmate.
Well, you'd be a professional engineer and not a "Professional Engineer", TM, all rights reserved.
But the point remains - you don't need to be a "Professional Engineer" in the US to be an engineer. They even make the distinction on their own website:
In the US, only about 20% of engineers have some kind of a professional license (including a PE).
Yeah, I'm in manufacturing (currently the R&D side, but involved a little more with production in the past when we still made things in the US). Not a PE in the whole building. My dad does civil stuff - they all have PEs. Building guys (structural, mechanical systems, electrical, etc) all have PEs.
Anyway, the point remains - a PE is above and beyond an engineer in the US. You are still an engineer without a PE, just not a "Professional Engineer".
You don't need to become a PE in the US. In fact, it is highly unusual unless you are signing off on certain documents. I took the exam straight out of school, but in my company of hundreds of engineers only one is a PE - and he works for facilities! So I don't have my PE because there is a apprenticeship requirement that I can't meet. (Technically there is a way around that requirement, but it's simply not worth the effort.)
"Subscribe to read more!"
Yeah... no.
You can't win that battle. Corporations can afford massive finance organizations that will outmaneuver any government. The tax rate for corporations in the US is 34-35%. The EFFECTIVE tax rate in the US is 13-14%. Put it in the individual domain where an entire division of every corporation is not working against you. The only reason we allow corporations is efficiency - don't use that efficiency against yourself.
OK, but that is a not a loophole unique to my proposal - it is happening currently. Don't hold it to an impossible standard.
First of all, when you say "perfectly legal", that means today. It doesn't need to be tomorrow.
Take borrowing. Go ahead and borrow against it and get ridiculously low interest rates. As you pay back the loan, you will need to draw money from somewhere, and that money will be taxed as income.
I'm proposing this with clear eyes. I know it would be difficult. But the criticisms you launch my way exist in the current system and there is no magic bullet. I just wanted to make it clear that my goal is not to lower taxes or let people who own corporations off the hook. Quite the contrary - I want to shut down the corporate tax-dodging departments where some of the smartest people in the world are currently being employed simply to find loopholes. No government can go up against that in the long term and come out ahead.
the food will be catered as general rule (and thus never taxed)
This can be done right now. If you can fix this in the current system, you can fix it in my system.
Yes, they do. And they pay corporate taxes.
No, not on expenses they don't. They only pay taxes on profits - and they don't really do that.
Your proposed your system preserves all the abuses and loopholes they already had
No, I said, "Adjust rates and loopholes to fill any revenue holes.". I don't know why, but you are putting words in my mouth.
Worse, they are sitting on billions held outside the country. Better to bring them in, which my system would encourage. I don't really care if they sit on a cash pile (or on short-term assets)... that means someone else in the economy can use it.
Whats to stop the owner of the corp from eating corp owned food, using the corp owned jet, driving the corp owned sports car, and living in the corp owned house.
Changes in tax law making those taxable compensation. As I said, closing the loopholes.
I'm not pretending that this would fix every abuse of the current system, so don't pooh-pooh it just because it's not perfect. Any fix you make to the current system can still be applied to the zero-tax-rate system.
the corporations would own and pay for everything else.
Like what? A place to live? That is taxable compensation. A car? That is taxable compensation. Food? Taxable compensation. You don't just leave the current rules in place and reduce taxes - you tax money on the way out of the corporation.
If want to go on vacation? My corporation sends me to Paris, for business meetings, meeting potential vendors, or looking at possible expansion sites.
Who cares? They do that right now under the current system. Why does my system get held to a standard that the current system does not? Anything you do to fix this in the current system can be applied to my proposal.
Their groceries are part of the business. Their car and house part of the business. And suddenly nobody pays income tax at all.
What? How?
Wealthy people that can hire creative attorneys already live this lifestyle.
Yes, I'm trying to but a huge dent in that industry.
When you change the rules to make that process easier or even more lucrative,
What process? Do what? If you take any money out of a corporation, it will get taxed as income. If you want to buy groceries, you take $100 out of your corporation, pay your $25 in taxes, and then buy your groceries. If you want to buy a yacht, you take $10,000,000 out of the corporation and pay $2,500,000 in taxes and then buy your yacht.
it becomes better for companies to hold on to cash
Yes, but this is a short-term problem. Eventually every stock holder dies... and the people with the most stock are old.
It also creates an incentive for a person to incorporate as some kind of sole-proprietorship that can avoid paying taxes on profits instead of recording that income as personal income.
But profits would eventually need to be drawn out of the entity.
but what's to stop someone from creating a small business that happens to be completely employee owned that attempts to do the same thing?
If the employees ever plan on spending their money, it will get taxed.
I'm not sure the side effect of essentially not taxing savings every year is a bad thing. It's effectively like an IRA.
I could go along with this for dividends, but for capital gains, I'd want the gain "taxed at normal income tax rates" to be adjusted for inflation over the period the assets were held. Same with interest income.
I don't have an immediate objection to that. You don't want to dissuade people from long-term investment in assets. The numbers would have to work out, and I'd point out that we don't do this today.
No - it would just be "income" and I wouldn't tax corporate income. Get it on the way out.
I'd like the opposite direction - remove corporate taxes altogether and instead tax capital gains (and the special dividend) at normal income tax rates. Adjust rates and loopholes to fill any revenue holes. Sure, thousands of accountants and tax lawyers would suddenly be looking for work - but it would destroy this kind of thing. And it would make the US into a very attractive site for any multinational.