Inheritance Taxes vs. Corporate Welfare

[WhiskeyGirl]

Inheritance Taxes vs. Corporate Welfare

Why should any hard working person pay the inheritance tax?  It seems to me that the superwealthy take care of their heirs by employing any number of vehicles to shelter their money, money that is the fruit of their labor.

Corporations don’t die.  They change management, pay bonuses…

Perhaps corporations should have a ‘tax death’ every year, before bonuses are paid out.  The tax rate could be the same as for individuals subject to the Inheritance Tax. 

Not fair?  Seems like corporations could end their business at will and avoid he death tax.  Individuals are not so lucky.

Are death taxes a kind of corporate welfare?  If society needs money, and they tax individuals with death taxes, why not corporations?  Maybe a corporate death tax lottery?

When corporations fail, why aren’t they allowed to die?  Let their asset be sold off, collect a corporate death tax, to help offset the unemployment, and other losses.

It seems like GM, Chrysler, Goldman Sachs, and others SHOULD have been good candidates to this redistribution of wealth to bond holders and government.

Why did Washington bail them out?  Why does Washington continue to bail them out?

Why does Washington seem to be using Freddie/Fannie to create financial burdens on future generations of Americans?  I think immediate death for these mammoths might have been in the best interests of ALL Americans. 

Why continue to prop up housing prices?  Why continue to make bad mortages?

Investors who buy foreclosures, market, and remarket are making a killing at taxpayer expense.  It’s like Washington is just shoveling money from the Freddie/Fannie/Treasury/Federal Reserve into the pockets of these opportunists.

Nothing for Main Street – just the generational debt and theft left behind by Washington and Wall Street Reapers.

Why shouldn’t corporation be allowed to die?  Create new opportunity for younger innovators? 

In life, people die.  Corporations should die too.

For some reason, Washington wants to take the money of individuals when they die.  When corporations die, they just shovel more taxpayer money into the bottomless money pit.

Corporations should die.  They shouldn't reach out from the grave and assualt the honest hardworking taxpayer.  It's the stuff of nightmares.

jmho

[WhiskeyGirl]

December 8, 2009 at 10:15 AM

pat, whether they left for more tax friendly climes or were hit by the recession, either way Maryland doesn't have that tax revenue do they? So my premise remains - 45% of nothing is still nothing.

If you're wealthy and you have the option of buying an estate in Turks and Caicos, where you won't have a 45% tax on it or buying an estate in Florida where you will what are you going to do? Or if you have the option of running your million dollar business from Switzerland that has a 19% corporate tax rate or from California with a 39% corporate tax rate what are you going to do? http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/17/taxes-corporations-business

High taxes kill economies.

I would agree.  For some reason, when corporation die, they get bailed out.  For some reason, when corporations die, they don’t produce green shoots, they create decay in economies and nations.  Jmho

juked, the Paris Hilton's of this world spend, invest, and then spend some more putting more and more money into our economy and employing more people than TARP ever did or ever will.

And how does double taxing people decrease the deficit? You want to decrease the deficit, lower taxes and encourage businesses to open up shop in your neighborhood. Maryland tried soaking the rich last year and the wealthy left to more tax friendly states.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329282377252471.html

The same thing can and will happen nationally only the wealthy will take their assets out of the country entirely. 45% of nothing won't pay down the deficit.

This class warfare has got to stop and people need to focus on who the real problem is here - government. Government needs to stop this spending orgy.These politicians are like teenagers who have spent their allowance on beer kegs and parties and then complain that they don't have enough money for rent. Enough is enough!

Inheritance taxes seem to fuel government spending.  No benefits for Main Street.  Just a continued orgy of spending in Washington…

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/reader_feedback/public/display.php?source_name=mbase&source_id=2010428204&offset=20

If government encouraged real wealth creation, I believe people would have jobs.  How many jobs has Wall Street created?  How much does Wall Street make off the backs of taxpayers due to Freddie/Fannie, Treasury, and the Federal Reserve?

Jmho

[WhiskeyGirl]

Oregon’s Measures 66 & 67

Taxing GROSS income?

The fact is that 85 percent of Oregon farms are sole proprietorships, which means they pay nothing under the corporate tax measure, Measure 67. At least another 10 percent are organized as either S-corporations or partnerships or C-corporations with revenues of less than $500,000, which means they would pay only $150. Only three-tenths of 1 percent of farms -- a grand total of 110 out of the roughly 38,000 farms statewide -- have more than $5 million in revenues. Only those 110 large operations could possibly pay more than $2,000 under the revised corporate minimum tax.

As to Measure 66, which raises taxes on households making more than $250,000, a true farm family could be affected only if it made more than $250,000 in farm profits. Since more than 95 percent of farms have less than $500,000 in total revenues, and there aren't many farms making a 50 percent profit, the number of real farmers affected by Measure 66 is vanishingly small.

There are some rich people who make their money in other ways but have "hobby farms." But on average, the "farm income" those people report is negative. In other words, these are rich people who have a hobby farm that operates at a loss, and they claim that loss so they can get a tax deduction.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/12/measures_66_and_67_family_farm.html

If a farm operates at a loss year after year, despite potential, or profit of similar operations, is it really a farm?

Posted by: FarmDD | Dec 22, 2009 12:18:16 PM
Whether it's $5 or $500,000, it is not right to tax farmers or anyone else based on gross income. Those many farmers who will not directly pay the tax actually have the moral high ground here because they advocate on the principal that it's not right to tax someone on money they do not have. Whatever Barry Bushue's personal situation (ad hominem attacks make poor public policy btw), his opposition seems rooted in the belief that gross revenue is the wrong basis for businesses to be taxed (morally and pragmatically). Small business gross income is not like a pay check. Gross revenue is not money one gets to keep. In this blind rage about PGE paying $10, the net has been cast so wide that it threatens to hurt countless farmers who are already struggling to stay afloat. They will pay based on gross receipts, and they will pay because they buy their farm equipment and supplies from and sell their products to businesses that may be hit much harder by these new taxes, and therefore farmers will bear that cost too indirectly. Farmers cannot pass on these costs like other businesses can. The politics of personal destruction is disturbing here. [/i]Rather than attacking those who disagree with the pro 66/67 people, why not think about the arguments they make and consider their merits.[/i] And bravo to Bushue and anyone else who does not buy the "hey these taxes are good because someone else is paying them" argument that is drowning the airwaves these days. Question the morality of celebrating the "someone else pays" rationale, then take a breath and realize that not only is it wrong, it is also naive. We all pay. President Obama is right that this is the worst possible time to raise taxes and Bushue is right that this is the worst possible way to raise taxes.

Someone has to pay for healthcare, who?

Posted by: Capitol Staffer | Dec 22, 2009 12:32:41 PM
Carla,
Morality? Really? I think you need to refer back to the post on this blog about the word “inconceivable.” I don’t think morality means what you think it does.
How is it moral to say these taxes won't affect me and I won't have to pay but then say you care about schools and other services so others should pick up the bill? Either you care about it and YOU are willing to pay for it or you don't. Very simple.

Capitol Staffer:
Carla is paying. I am paying. All Oregonians are paying for the important functions of our state. What isn't happening? Huge out of state banks and big-box stores paying. Hyper-wealthy folks who can afford high priced attorneys and CPA to shelter their income from state taxes.
I own a business in Oregon. 66 and 67 are a smart and necessary way to keep Oregon moving in a positive direction. To say otherwise is to not believe in reality.

Bingo!  Those that can afford to buy favor in Washington don’t pay taxes. 

http://www.blueoregon.com/2009/12/farmer-to-farm-bureau-tell-the-truth-on-m6667.html?cid=6a00d8341c2c3f53ef01287676781b970c

Do corporations get taxed on gross income?  Regardless of where it is produced?  Global presence?

Interesting discussion.

Why don’t wealthy global corporations pay their own way?  Why do they access taxpayer money via Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC?  Make profits using the money in their own pocket?

Why is Washington allowing these big gamblers to gamble with taxpayer money?

If someone has to pay for their gambling, why does the hand dig deeper into taxpayer pockets?

Seems to me like 66 & 67 are not appropriate.  A shell game.

jmho

[WhiskeyGirl]

In January, Oregonians will decide on the two measures, which call for raised income taxes on some businesses and people with high incomes. Measure 67 will hike taxes on businesses and in many cases would raise the minimum tax from $10 to $150 annually. The second measure would raise personal income tax on people earning $125,000 or more and joint filers who earn at least $250,000.

Among the protesters, Adella Robison said taxing the corporations would be a bad move for the state, as it will deter those businesses from hiring new employees. According to a press release from the group, economists have estimated the permanent tax increase would cost 70,000 Oregonians their jobs. The higher taxes would only save public employee positions, the press release contends.

http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2009/12/28/news/doc4b38f9849c7af904670469.txt

This reminds me of Detroit.  A city with what some estimate as a 50% unemployment rate, hopelessness, despair…

What does Detroit have?  Substandard schools, jobs being offshored, and unions.

Why aren’t they looking to lower taxes?  Find better solutions for educating children?  Offer school vouchers to reduce costs?