As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The [Economy] is finding affordable housing for Tesla stonks

1272829303133»

Posts

  • DarklyreDarklyre Registered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Doesn't VAT end up getting passed down the line to be paid by the end consumer or is that a different model I'm thinking of?

    All taxes are paid by a combination of consumers, employees, and owners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence

    Who nominally has to pay the tax is often only a difference in optics.

    Which is pretty much why I don't really care much for the corporate tax. It violates most of the principles of a good tax, namely transparency and accountability, and most of the time someone can't even tell me who actually is getting taxed from it.

    Totally agreed! If I was tax dictator, I would get rid of the corporate income tax. If we want to tax rich people, just tax rich people. In fact, without a corporate income tax, we could tax dividends and capital gains at full freight without running into the distortionary effects of double taxation. If you want to tax consumption based on location, just use sales/VAT.

    But with the Democrats in charge, that sort of thinking is probably not realistic. A lot of the support on the left sees corporations as people that should be paying for some nebulous justice reasons.

    If you get rid of the corporate tax then rich people will just pay themselves in stocks or find other ways to leave their money in the corporation while they continue to get richer.

    Yeah you tax their gains on said stock as income when they sell it or transfer it. It’s worthless paper until they convert it into goods/etc.

    But the rich can use their stocks as collateral to get a loan with an interest rate much lower than any taxes they would pay on the stock, so that they never have to sell the stock. Or they do things like count the stock being sold as the stock that was just issued to them (so least growth) and keep all of their higher gains stock.

    The problem is that the rich can incredibly game the system with regards to taxes, we need to stop that gaming and get rid of so many exemptions and work arounds.

    Who cares if they get a loan? They eventually have to pay it back with actual money, meaning that at some point they need to sell stock and thus they have to pay capital gains. If they don't pay it back, the lender takes the collateral, liquidates it, and the bank's shareholders pay the taxes on that. The loans are a means to defer taxes and gain liquidity, not avoid taxes outright.

    DoodmannOghulkmonikerButtersLord_Asmodeus
  • SimpsoniaSimpsonia Registered User regular
    Right, but the rich don't need to use personal cash for all of their expensive living. Private Jet - owned by shell corporation; Luxury Yacht in the Maldives - owned by corporation and used for "entertainment". Vacation mansions - owned by shell corporation and exclusively leased to corporation for "corporate retreats".

    So all of that massive amount of consumption that you're attributing their need to sell stock for, just isn't necessary. And yes, a lot of this is all very gray taxable liability areas, but the IRS has been so neutered that it's essentially impossible for them to audit/enforce those rules against the ultra rich. So who cares if they sell $1M of stock a year to pay for the things they need to when $100M worth of ultra-rich living is paid for by corporation/shell-corporations that you are advocating skate by tax free.

    CelestialBadgerMartini_PhilosopherLord_AsmodeusHefflingGnome-InterruptusMayabirdMatev
  • OghulkOghulk Registered User regular
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    Right, but the rich don't need to use personal cash for all of their expensive living. Private Jet - owned by shell corporation; Luxury Yacht in the Maldives - owned by corporation and used for "entertainment". Vacation mansions - owned by shell corporation and exclusively leased to corporation for "corporate retreats".

    So all of that massive amount of consumption that you're attributing their need to sell stock for, just isn't necessary. And yes, a lot of this is all very gray taxable liability areas, but the IRS has been so neutered that it's essentially impossible for them to audit/enforce those rules against the ultra rich. So who cares if they sell $1M of stock a year to pay for the things they need to when $100M worth of ultra-rich living is paid for by corporation/shell-corporations that you are advocating skate by tax free.

    The corporation needs revenue to pay for those things. A VAT would effectively tax their revenue and so would tax those things.

    monikerButters
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Doesn't VAT end up getting passed down the line to be paid by the end consumer or is that a different model I'm thinking of?

    All taxes are paid by a combination of consumers, employees, and owners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence

    Who nominally has to pay the tax is often only a difference in optics.

    Which is pretty much why I don't really care much for the corporate tax. It violates most of the principles of a good tax, namely transparency and accountability, and most of the time someone can't even tell me who actually is getting taxed from it.

    Totally agreed! If I was tax dictator, I would get rid of the corporate income tax. If we want to tax rich people, just tax rich people. In fact, without a corporate income tax, we could tax dividends and capital gains at full freight without running into the distortionary effects of double taxation. If you want to tax consumption based on location, just use sales/VAT.

    But with the Democrats in charge, that sort of thinking is probably not realistic. A lot of the support on the left sees corporations as people that should be paying for some nebulous justice reasons.

    If you get rid of the corporate tax then rich people will just pay themselves in stocks or find other ways to leave their money in the corporation while they continue to get richer.

    If you receive stock as compensation, you are taxed on the value of that stock when it vests at ordinary income tax levels.

  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Doesn't VAT end up getting passed down the line to be paid by the end consumer or is that a different model I'm thinking of?

    All taxes are paid by a combination of consumers, employees, and owners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence

    Who nominally has to pay the tax is often only a difference in optics.

    Which is pretty much why I don't really care much for the corporate tax. It violates most of the principles of a good tax, namely transparency and accountability, and most of the time someone can't even tell me who actually is getting taxed from it.

    Totally agreed! If I was tax dictator, I would get rid of the corporate income tax. If we want to tax rich people, just tax rich people. In fact, without a corporate income tax, we could tax dividends and capital gains at full freight without running into the distortionary effects of double taxation. If you want to tax consumption based on location, just use sales/VAT.

    But with the Democrats in charge, that sort of thinking is probably not realistic. A lot of the support on the left sees corporations as people that should be paying for some nebulous justice reasons.

    If you get rid of the corporate tax then rich people will just pay themselves in stocks or find other ways to leave their money in the corporation while they continue to get richer.

    Yeah you tax their gains on said stock as income when they sell it or transfer it. It’s worthless paper until they convert it into goods/etc.

    But the rich can use their stocks as collateral to get a loan with an interest rate much lower than any taxes they would pay on the stock, so that they never have to sell the stock. Or they do things like count the stock being sold as the stock that was just issued to them (so least growth) and keep all of their higher gains stock.

    The problem is that the rich can incredibly game the system with regards to taxes, we need to stop that gaming and get rid of so many exemptions and work arounds.

    Getting a loan isn't a problem. They either have a cash stream that can pay for the loan so the loan was mostly just a convenience anyway, or they have to sell in the future and you collect then. It's no different than a mortgage really

    Allowing selling newer lots with lower gains (or older lots with reduced gains) is probably one of the US' biggest tax fuckups. Just roll everything into one big batch of fungible shares. No selling lots with different acquisition prices, you just have one average price

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    Right, but the rich don't need to use personal cash for all of their expensive living. Private Jet - owned by shell corporation; Luxury Yacht in the Maldives - owned by corporation and used for "entertainment". Vacation mansions - owned by shell corporation and exclusively leased to corporation for "corporate retreats".

    So all of that massive amount of consumption that you're attributing their need to sell stock for, just isn't necessary. And yes, a lot of this is all very gray taxable liability areas, but the IRS has been so neutered that it's essentially impossible for them to audit/enforce those rules against the ultra rich. So who cares if they sell $1M of stock a year to pay for the things they need to when $100M worth of ultra-rich living is paid for by corporation/shell-corporations that you are advocating skate by tax free.

    The corporation needs revenue to pay for those things. A VAT would effectively tax their revenue and so would tax those things.

    Seriously, you can't make a better case for consumption taxes than providing examples of how rich people write off personal expenses.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    Doodmannenc0rejkylefultonGnome-InterruptusMatev
  • Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    For me the benefit of VAT over Sales Tax is literally just the ease of use at the end user side.

    There are a lot of specific complaints to lodge against our various taxes and approaches and levels. Regressivity versus progressivity. Perverse incentive structures, dead weight loss, enforcement costs. &c. But even if you put all of the arguments of what those ought to be to one side, the way we do it is just extremely annoying. Needlessly so.

    Hard agree here.

    The ways and permutations sales taxes take not to mention the various entities who claim various portions of said taxes. For instance, Arkansas has different counties who charge special sales taxes on if a beverage is served to you cold or not. Which includes picking up some soda or milk from your local gas & service station. That's right. Warm milk has a different, lower sales tax rate than cold milk.

    I would hope that a VAT would be used to get rid of such things, simplifying tax structures not only throughout states but also unify the collection. Because right now having city, county, state, with the possibility for geographically bound special sales taxes is a gigantic pain the tuchus.

    All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
  • SimpsoniaSimpsonia Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    Right, but the rich don't need to use personal cash for all of their expensive living. Private Jet - owned by shell corporation; Luxury Yacht in the Maldives - owned by corporation and used for "entertainment". Vacation mansions - owned by shell corporation and exclusively leased to corporation for "corporate retreats".

    So all of that massive amount of consumption that you're attributing their need to sell stock for, just isn't necessary. And yes, a lot of this is all very gray taxable liability areas, but the IRS has been so neutered that it's essentially impossible for them to audit/enforce those rules against the ultra rich. So who cares if they sell $1M of stock a year to pay for the things they need to when $100M worth of ultra-rich living is paid for by corporation/shell-corporations that you are advocating skate by tax free.

    The corporation needs revenue to pay for those things. A VAT would effectively tax their revenue and so would tax those things.

    I assume you'd still advocate for use-taxes then for things like private jets and yachts that are bought and chartered in the Caymans but yet spend 90% of their time in the states?

  • OghulkOghulk Registered User regular
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    Right, but the rich don't need to use personal cash for all of their expensive living. Private Jet - owned by shell corporation; Luxury Yacht in the Maldives - owned by corporation and used for "entertainment". Vacation mansions - owned by shell corporation and exclusively leased to corporation for "corporate retreats".

    So all of that massive amount of consumption that you're attributing their need to sell stock for, just isn't necessary. And yes, a lot of this is all very gray taxable liability areas, but the IRS has been so neutered that it's essentially impossible for them to audit/enforce those rules against the ultra rich. So who cares if they sell $1M of stock a year to pay for the things they need to when $100M worth of ultra-rich living is paid for by corporation/shell-corporations that you are advocating skate by tax free.

    The corporation needs revenue to pay for those things. A VAT would effectively tax their revenue and so would tax those things.

    I assume you'd still advocate for use-taxes then for things like private jets and yachts that are bought and chartered in the Caymans but yet spend 90% of their time in the states?

    Carbon tax would address that effectively enough.

    Doodmannschuss
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited April 8
    And right on topic, a bombshell exclusive from the Financial Times (the world's best newspaper IMHO). Pardon the FB link, but it gets you around their paywall in incognito mode.
    FT wrote:
    The Biden administration is calling for the world’s biggest multinational companies to pay levies to national governments based on their sales in each country, as part of an ambitious proposal for a global minimum tax.

    The plan would apply to the global profits of the very largest companies, including big US technology groups, regardless of their physical presence in a given country.

    The US Treasury laid out its proposal in documents obtained by the Financial Times, which had been sent to the 135 countries negotiating international taxation at the OECD in Paris.

    enc0re on
    LucedesJragghenMartini_PhilosopherButtersQuidDoodmannGiantGeek2020SimpsoniaMvrckjmcdonaldCalicaKayne Red RobeLord_AsmodeusCelestialBadgerGnome-InterruptuskimeMillGennenalyse RuebenL Ron HowardMatevKetar
  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    This has been going on for a while. Unfortunately there is a giant loop hole in it because it uses profit as a percentage of gross, which can be easily manipulated by having daughter corps loan money to you.

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    SanderJK wrote: »
    This has been going on for a while. Unfortunately there is a giant loop hole in it because it uses profit as a percentage of gross, which can be easily manipulated by having daughter corps loan money to you.

    Can you expand on this? I don't follow.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    SanderJK wrote: »
    This has been going on for a while. Unfortunately there is a giant loop hole in it because it uses profit as a percentage of gross, which can be easily manipulated by having daughter corps loan money to you.

    That doesn’t work if everyone has the same tax rate. The way avoidance works is that you reduce your income in a high tax jurisdiction and increase it in a low tax jurisdiction. If you could just make the “profit” disappear then this plan wouldn’t matter.

    The point is that if there is a minimum rate then a nation does not gain a benefit trying to avoid taxes by shifting income because the tax rates are too similar to make it worthwhile

    wbBv3fj.png
    schussDoodmann
  • MonwynMonwyn Registered User regular
    edited April 9
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    Right, but the rich don't need to use personal cash for all of their expensive living. Private Jet - owned by shell corporation; Luxury Yacht in the Maldives - owned by corporation and used for "entertainment". Vacation mansions - owned by shell corporation and exclusively leased to corporation for "corporate retreats".

    So all of that massive amount of consumption that you're attributing their need to sell stock for, just isn't necessary. And yes, a lot of this is all very gray taxable liability areas, but the IRS has been so neutered that it's essentially impossible for them to audit/enforce those rules against the ultra rich. So who cares if they sell $1M of stock a year to pay for the things they need to when $100M worth of ultra-rich living is paid for by corporation/shell-corporations that you are advocating skate by tax free.

    The corporation needs revenue to pay for those things.

    kCO3cDu.png

    Turns out the corporation runs at a huge loss! Then it goes out of business and sells its assets to this new travel corporation for way under market.

    Repeat as necessary.

    Monwyn on
    uH3IcEi.png
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    Right, but the rich don't need to use personal cash for all of their expensive living. Private Jet - owned by shell corporation; Luxury Yacht in the Maldives - owned by corporation and used for "entertainment". Vacation mansions - owned by shell corporation and exclusively leased to corporation for "corporate retreats".

    So all of that massive amount of consumption that you're attributing their need to sell stock for, just isn't necessary. And yes, a lot of this is all very gray taxable liability areas, but the IRS has been so neutered that it's essentially impossible for them to audit/enforce those rules against the ultra rich. So who cares if they sell $1M of stock a year to pay for the things they need to when $100M worth of ultra-rich living is paid for by corporation/shell-corporations that you are advocating skate by tax free.

    The corporation needs revenue to pay for those things.

    kCO3cDu.png

    Turns out the corporation runs at a huge loss! Then it goes out of business and sells its assets to this new travel corporation for way under market.

    Repeat as necessary.

    There's a bar/concert venue/event center here that has been running that model for 20+ years.

    It's currently a "wedding event center" but I'm guessing very soon it's going to go bankrupt again and be "sold" to another one of the owners who will then turn it into god knows what.

    Hopefully back into a concert venue since it was the only good indoor one we had here but at this point I wouldn't be surprised if the next thing is an indoor alpaca farm or something.

    Doodmann
  • OghulkOghulk Registered User regular
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    Right, but the rich don't need to use personal cash for all of their expensive living. Private Jet - owned by shell corporation; Luxury Yacht in the Maldives - owned by corporation and used for "entertainment". Vacation mansions - owned by shell corporation and exclusively leased to corporation for "corporate retreats".

    So all of that massive amount of consumption that you're attributing their need to sell stock for, just isn't necessary. And yes, a lot of this is all very gray taxable liability areas, but the IRS has been so neutered that it's essentially impossible for them to audit/enforce those rules against the ultra rich. So who cares if they sell $1M of stock a year to pay for the things they need to when $100M worth of ultra-rich living is paid for by corporation/shell-corporations that you are advocating skate by tax free.

    The corporation needs revenue to pay for those things.

    kCO3cDu.png

    Turns out the corporation runs at a huge loss! Then it goes out of business and sells its assets to this new travel corporation for way under market.

    Repeat as necessary.

    Running at a loss means they still generate revenue.

    Also don't think the gigantic meme is necessary.

    Captain InertiaSmrtnikshrykeGnome-InterruptusButtersGennenalyse RuebenQuidHeffling
  • OghulkOghulk Registered User regular
    Like in this instance where the corporation runs at a huge loss the corporate income tax is actually not going to generate any tax revenue.

    monikerCaptain InertiapainfulPleasanceshrykeGnome-Interruptusenc0re
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    In financier related news, Ponzi scheme king Bernie Madoff has died in prison:
    Bernie Madoff, the financier who pleaded guilty to orchestrating a massive Ponzi scheme, died in a federal prison early Wednesday, a person familiar with the matter told The Associated Press. He was 82.

    Madoff died at the Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina, apparently from natural causes, the person said. The person was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity.

    Last year, Madoff’s lawyers filed court papers to try to get him released from prison in the coronavirus pandemic, saying he had suffered from end-stage renal disease and other chronic medical conditions. The request was denied.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Stabbity StyleTicaldfjam
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    In financier related news, Ponzi scheme king Bernie Madoff has died in prison:
    Bernie Madoff, the financier who pleaded guilty to orchestrating a massive Ponzi scheme, died in a federal prison early Wednesday, a person familiar with the matter told The Associated Press. He was 82.

    Madoff died at the Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina, apparently from natural causes, the person said. The person was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity.

    Last year, Madoff’s lawyers filed court papers to try to get him released from prison in the coronavirus pandemic, saying he had suffered from end-stage renal disease and other chronic medical conditions. The request was denied.

    No huge loss, but he would probably have walked were it not for his one critical mistake.

    He conned rich people.

    ButtersMartini_PhilosopherStabbity StyleKarozMatevOrcaIncenjucarBlackDragon480KrieghundL Ron HowardCommander ZoomSoggybiscuitDoodmannHefflingShadowfireTicaldfjamLord_AsmodeusHappylilElf
  • KarozKaroz Registered User regular
    Welp, got my $600 California stimulus check today, again based on my 2020 tax returns.

    BandableTicaldfjamGiantGeek2020
Sign In or Register to comment.