Author Topic: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)  (Read 14339 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline treysolid

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2415
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #825 on: December 04, 2017, 10:45:22 PM »
So are kdub and fsd admitting that they think trickle down works?

Yes, I think supply side economics works. So do a great many economists.

It's worked out so well for KS, hasn't it?

8 consecutive months exceeding revenue projections :Wha: :Wha:

6 months of which is after Brownbacks veto was overridden and taxes were raised. Still a 320 million budget deficit. You moron.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 22642
    • View Profile
Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #826 on: December 04, 2017, 10:51:25 PM »
So are kdub and fsd admitting that they think trickle down works?

Yes, I think supply side economics works. So do a great many economists.

It's worked out so well for KS, hasn't it?

8 consecutive months exceeding revenue projections :Wha: :Wha:

6 months of which is after Brownbacks veto was overridden and taxes were raised. Still a 320 million budget deficit. You moron.

Only money, just numbers.


Offline treysolid

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2415
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #827 on: December 04, 2017, 10:57:59 PM »
So are kdub and fsd admitting that they think trickle down works?

Yes, I think supply side economics works. So do a great many economists.

It's worked out so well for KS, hasn't it?

8 consecutive months exceeding revenue projections :Wha: :Wha:

6 months of which is after Brownbacks veto was overridden and taxes were raised. Still a 320 million budget deficit. You moron.

Only money, just numbers.

Your strawman doesn't pertain to me

Online chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 11743
    • View Profile
Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #828 on: December 05, 2017, 07:43:27 AM »

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 35201
    • View Profile
Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #829 on: December 06, 2017, 02:54:43 PM »
get a haircut Wolfers

Online catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4716
    • View Profile
Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #830 on: December 06, 2017, 03:34:17 PM »

Again, everyone knew this going into it.  They just did not have the guts to kill the bill.

Offline bucket

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3656
    • View Profile
Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #831 on: December 06, 2017, 04:29:46 PM »

Online libliblibliblibliblib

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 42904
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #832 on: December 06, 2017, 04:31:21 PM »
And it's the same guy suing john oliver
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

I think.you.are deep down.a.trans cowboy gravy eater.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 22642
    • View Profile
Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #833 on: December 06, 2017, 04:36:04 PM »
So are kdub and fsd admitting that they think trickle down works?

Yes, I think supply side economics works. So do a great many economists.

It's worked out so well for KS, hasn't it?

8 consecutive months exceeding revenue projections :Wha: :Wha:

6 months of which is after Brownbacks veto was overridden and taxes were raised. Still a 320 million budget deficit. You moron.

Only money, just numbers.



Your strawman doesn't pertain to me

The standard Dem answer to all deficit and budget matters for 8 consecutive years is absolutely applicable to this entire discussion.


Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8407
    • View Profile
Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #834 on: December 13, 2017, 01:44:40 PM »
House and Senate are getting pretty close to a deal on the tax reform package. "Raising" the corporate rate to 21-22% makes it pretty easy to pay for the other changes necessary to resolve the differences. Sounds like the only remaining sticking point is rates and rules for pass-through business income.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-gop-tax-plan-20171213-story.html
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 35201
    • View Profile
Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #835 on: December 13, 2017, 01:49:09 PM »
House and Senate are getting pretty close to a deal on the tax reform package. "Raising" the corporate rate to 21-22% makes it pretty easy to pay for the other changes necessary to resolve the differences. Sounds like the only remaining sticking point is rates and rules for pass-through business income.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-gop-tax-plan-20171213-story.html

I mean, that is the entire premise of his dipshit plan is to cut taxes for us so we go spend it or reinvest.  WTH is the problem with these gross losers actually following through?

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8407
    • View Profile
Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #836 on: December 13, 2017, 02:01:16 PM »
House and Senate are getting pretty close to a deal on the tax reform package. "Raising" the corporate rate to 21-22% makes it pretty easy to pay for the other changes necessary to resolve the differences. Sounds like the only remaining sticking point is rates and rules for pass-through business income.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-gop-tax-plan-20171213-story.html

I mean, that is the entire premise of his dipshit plan is to cut taxes for us so we go spend it or reinvest.  WTH is the problem with these gross losers actually following through?

Can you explain the issue?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8407
    • View Profile
Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #837 on: December 13, 2017, 02:15:32 PM »
Here's how I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong (I am far far far from knowledgeable about this)...

Typical C-Corporations are subject to double taxation, at least theoretically. They pay taxes once on their profits, and then the shareholders are taxed again on any distributions from the business. I say theoretically because there are evidently all kinds of ways to essentially pay zero corporate income tax, but the shareholders still pay the personal income tax on distributions.

S-Corps and other pass-through entities don't have to pay corporate income tax, as long as they follow certain rules, but the shareholders still pay personal income tax on distributions, just like shareholders of C-Corps.

Do I have that right?

If so, I totally understand why we would reduce the corporate income tax rate on C-Corps, but why would S-Corps get a special personal income tax rate on their distributions? Aren't they already receiving favorable tax treatment by not having to pay any corporate income tax?

What's the argument?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Online Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 15018
    • View Profile
Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #838 on: December 13, 2017, 02:37:59 PM »
It looks like they are removing the stupid stuff that targeted grad students that you thought was a good idea.
@bentren

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 35201
    • View Profile
Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #839 on: December 13, 2017, 02:46:09 PM »
Here's how I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong (I am far far far from knowledgeable about this)...

Typical C-Corporations are subject to double taxation, at least theoretically. They pay taxes once on their profits, and then the shareholders are taxed again on any distributions from the business. I say theoretically because there are evidently all kinds of ways to essentially pay zero corporate income tax, but the shareholders still pay the personal income tax on distributions.

S-Corps and other pass-through entities don't have to pay corporate income tax, as long as they follow certain rules, but the shareholders still pay personal income tax on distributions, just like shareholders of C-Corps.

Do I have that right?

If so, I totally understand why we would reduce the corporate income tax rate on C-Corps, but why would S-Corps get a special personal income tax rate on their distributions? Aren't they already receiving favorable tax treatment by not having to pay any corporate income tax?

What's the argument?

Members of LLC's are employing people and buying office ferns - it's the engine of the economy bro.

Online catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4716
    • View Profile
Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #840 on: December 13, 2017, 02:53:55 PM »
Fewer businesses (ESPECIALLY small businesses) are organized as C corporations. If the bill is cutting the corporate tax rate for the sake of creating jobs it makes no sense not to give similar breaks to LLCs and S Corps.

Of course, if the intent of cutting the corporate tax rate is to allow fatter bottom lines and bigger bonuses to mega corporation executives, then it is entirely consistent that the same breaks would not apply to s corps and LLCs.

Online libliblibliblibliblib

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 42904
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #841 on: December 13, 2017, 03:04:20 PM »
It looks like they are removing the stupid stuff that targeted grad students that you thought was a good idea.

This is very good
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

I think.you.are deep down.a.trans cowboy gravy eater.

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 35201
    • View Profile
Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #842 on: December 13, 2017, 03:05:18 PM »
Fewer businesses (ESPECIALLY small businesses) are organized as C corporations. If the bill is cutting the corporate tax rate for the sake of creating jobs it makes no sense not to give similar breaks to LLCs and S Corps.

Of course, if the intent of cutting the corporate tax rate is to allow fatter bottom lines and bigger bonuses to mega corporation executives, then it is entirely consistent that the same breaks would not apply to s corps and LLCs.

that is really so obvious only a complete idiot couldn't see it

Offline wetwillie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 17035
    • View Profile
Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #843 on: December 13, 2017, 03:05:52 PM »
Big Grad with another power move to keep the public money flowing
When the bullets are flying, that's when I'm at my best

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8407
    • View Profile
Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #844 on: December 13, 2017, 04:16:16 PM »
It looks like they are removing the stupid stuff that targeted grad students that you thought was a good idea.

If by "target" you mean "treat them like everyone else" (or more specifically, require the universities to provide adequate compensation such that they can pay taxes on their scholarships), then it would be a shame for the GOP to back away from this. The higher ed lobby wins again, I guess.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2017, 04:27:23 PM by K-S-U-Wildcats! »
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8407
    • View Profile
Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #845 on: December 13, 2017, 04:26:31 PM »
Fewer businesses (ESPECIALLY small businesses) are organized as C corporations. If the bill is cutting the corporate tax rate for the sake of creating jobs it makes no sense not to give similar breaks to LLCs and S Corps.

Um, sure it does? Again, s-corps and other pass-through entities already enjoyed a significant tax benefit over c-corps. The pass through entities aren't being double-taxed. They pay personal income taxes on their distributions, which seems fair to me. C-corps get a corporate tax cut to reduce the double taxation, and then still pay personal income tax on the distributions.

Right? So that's why the corporate income tax should be reduced: to lessen double taxation and bring them onto more equal footing with s-corps.

The question I have is why an owner (partner, shareholder, etc.) of an s-corp should pay less personal income tax than a W-2 wage earner. If the goal is to help "small businesses", the vast majority of those won't be impacted by this at all because their marginal personal income tax rate is already less than 25% (that's the proposed max rate for pass-throughs under the house bill). So the rate reduction would only seem to help folks who receive a big enough distribution from an s-corp that their marginal rate would exceed that 25%.

If we are trying to incentivize people to start businesses, seems like the s-corp structure was already a pretty good incentive: open a business and you won't pay any corporate income tax on your profits - you just pay personal income tax on what you take out of the business, same as everyone else.

I understand why Kansas eliminated taxes on s-corps: it was designed to lure businesses to Kansas. But that's a non-issue when implementing nationwide.

At the end of the day, I'm not begrudging anyone getting a better deal than me. I'm already getting a pretty sweet deal. Just seems odd to me that we'd allow two people earning the same amount to pay significantly different rates based on a legal fiction.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2017, 04:35:46 PM by K-S-U-Wildcats! »
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Online catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4716
    • View Profile
Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #846 on: December 13, 2017, 04:40:04 PM »
You know businesses can choose their organizational structure, right?

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8407
    • View Profile
Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #847 on: December 13, 2017, 04:47:04 PM »
You know businesses can choose their organizational structure, right?

Sort of. As I understand it, there are certain restrictions in place. Not just any business can be an s-corp. I think there is a maximum number of shareholders, restrictions on share classifications, etc. So again, my questions above....
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 35201
    • View Profile
Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #848 on: December 13, 2017, 04:50:36 PM »
Fewer businesses (ESPECIALLY small businesses) are organized as C corporations. If the bill is cutting the corporate tax rate for the sake of creating jobs it makes no sense not to give similar breaks to LLCs and S Corps.

Um, sure it does? Again, s-corps and other pass-through entities already enjoyed a significant tax benefit over c-corps. The pass through entities aren't being double-taxed. They pay personal income taxes on their distributions, which seems fair to me. C-corps get a corporate tax cut to reduce the double taxation, and then still pay personal income tax on the distributions.

Right? So that's why the corporate income tax should be reduced: to lessen double taxation and bring them onto more equal footing with s-corps.

The question I have is why an owner (partner, shareholder, etc.) of an s-corp should pay less personal income tax than a W-2 wage earner. If the goal is to help "small businesses", the vast majority of those won't be impacted by this at all because their marginal personal income tax rate is already less than 25% (that's the proposed max rate for pass-throughs under the house bill). So the rate reduction would only seem to help folks who receive a big enough distribution from an s-corp that their marginal rate would exceed that 25%.

If we are trying to incentivize people to start businesses, seems like the s-corp structure was already a pretty good incentive: open a business and you won't pay any corporate income tax on your profits - you just pay personal income tax on what you take out of the business, same as everyone else.

I understand why Kansas eliminated taxes on s-corps: it was designed to lure businesses to Kansas. But that's a non-issue when implementing nationwide.

At the end of the day, I'm not begrudging anyone getting a better deal than me. I'm already getting a pretty sweet deal. Just seems odd to me that we'd allow two people earning the same amount to pay significantly different rates based on a legal fiction.

Because the member is not some schmuck w-2 wage earner. 

Offline wetwillie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 17035
    • View Profile
Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
« Reply #849 on: December 13, 2017, 04:52:09 PM »
Fewer businesses (ESPECIALLY small businesses) are organized as C corporations. If the bill is cutting the corporate tax rate for the sake of creating jobs it makes no sense not to give similar breaks to LLCs and S Corps.

Um, sure it does? Again, s-corps and other pass-through entities already enjoyed a significant tax benefit over c-corps. The pass through entities aren't being double-taxed. They pay personal income taxes on their distributions, which seems fair to me. C-corps get a corporate tax cut to reduce the double taxation, and then still pay personal income tax on the distributions.

Right? So that's why the corporate income tax should be reduced: to lessen double taxation and bring them onto more equal footing with s-corps.

The question I have is why an owner (partner, shareholder, etc.) of an s-corp should pay less personal income tax than a W-2 wage earner. If the goal is to help "small businesses", the vast majority of those won't be impacted by this at all because their marginal personal income tax rate is already less than 25% (that's the proposed max rate for pass-throughs under the house bill). So the rate reduction would only seem to help folks who receive a big enough distribution from an s-corp that their marginal rate would exceed that 25%.

If we are trying to incentivize people to start businesses, seems like the s-corp structure was already a pretty good incentive: open a business and you won't pay any corporate income tax on your profits - you just pay personal income tax on what you take out of the business, same as everyone else.

I understand why Kansas eliminated taxes on s-corps: it was designed to lure businesses to Kansas. But that's a non-issue when implementing nationwide.

At the end of the day, I'm not begrudging anyone getting a better deal than me. I'm already getting a pretty sweet deal. Just seems odd to me that we'd allow two people earning the same amount to pay significantly different rates based on a legal fiction.

Because the member is not some schmuck w-2 wage earner. 

Wageist
When the bullets are flying, that's when I'm at my best