RonPaulFanInGA
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2007
- Messages
- 12,749
Gary Johnson Believes He Deserves to Debate
- Thread starter RonPaulFanInGA
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 63,472
You would think that being a two-term GOP Governor would qualify a person to participate in a GOP Presidential debate.
The real story here is the media acting as gatekeepers. They are serving their role as part of the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Financial-Corporate-Media Complex.
The real story here is the media acting as gatekeepers. They are serving their role as part of the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Financial-Corporate-Media Complex.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 63,472
The first thing that Gary says in the interview is "eliminate the Corporate Tax". Same as Hannity. Are corporations "persons"? Apparently they should have all of the rights and benefits of persons, but none of the liabilities. Nobody wants more taxes, but catering even more to the Corporatists is no answer.
Why not turn that idea around and eliminate all personal income taxes and leave the Corporate taxes in place instead? That would still reduce taxes, stimulate the economy, and provide an incentive for employees of corporations (including executives) to locate in the US.
Why the deference to corporations? Is it better to screw over the middle class with massive income taxes? The poor don't pay taxes, and the ultra rich evade taxes and shelter their money in a variety of places, including corporations which serve no other purpose than being a tax shelter. Hmmm. Now it all makes sense...
low preference guy
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 16,097
Having a corporate tax produces double taxation. People are taxed as individuals and then taxed again because they own a corporation.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 63,472
So why not single taxation on the corporations, and not on the individual? Do you like personal income taxes?
It's all about accounting and whether the profits (or losses) stays in the corporation. Eliminate personal income taxes, and "corporations" will distribute profits to owners, investors and/or employees, and then no taxes would be paid. You will never avoid all of the various government fees on corporations, but it's about how the accounting is done.
If you eliminate all corporate taxes, it is a disincentive to distribute profits, even if you are the owner and you would only distribute them to yourself. Leave the money in the corporation, never officially distribute it, and you are only liable for corporate tax rates (which could become zero). You avoid personal income taxes altogether. This is the strategy behind proposals to eliminate corporate income taxes and continue personal income taxes, and it only benefits a select few. If you really want to stimulate the economy, get rid of personal income taxes. Everyone will have more money to spend.
low preference guy
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 16,097
i'm for repealing both corporate taxes and personal income taxes. whatever can pass first it's worth fighting for.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 63,472
For me, it has to be the personal income tax first. The other way around is just more cronyism and corporatism.
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
Along the lines of my belief that Fox and the Kochs find Gary to be the 'more easily manageable libertarian' as they see it, and my belief that they are pushing him, can anyone here who was around when Ron was kicked off the Fox debate even though he was higher in polls and votes than Guiliani, clear up one point for me? Did Fox do a news segment and blog on Ron believing he really should be allowed in the debate? Or is that treatment only Gary is getting, even though he is polling much lower than Ron did at the time?
This has nothing to do with whether Gary should be on the debate, I think if their standards are their standards, Santorum shouldn't be, either, frankly. I just wonder that this time FOX cares so much.
This has nothing to do with whether Gary should be on the debate, I think if their standards are their standards, Santorum shouldn't be, either, frankly. I just wonder that this time FOX cares so much.
low preference guy
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 16,097
I disagree. Eliminating any tax is a step in the right direction.
I prefer eliminating the personal income tax though if both are equally feasible. I think Gary isn't emphasizing eliminating that one because he doesn't want to be seen as radical. In relation to that, I have often said that putting in the mind of the voters the idea that Ron is the only candidate in favor of eliminating the personal income tax will be very helpful to him, and I wish he emphasized it more.
Last edited:
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
I agree. It is like corporations now being able to donate as much as they want to candidates-- but actual people can't. It isn't so much that the corporate part is 'wrong' in isolation as that the combination is back-assward.
Napoleon's Shadow
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2011
- Messages
- 2,714
There is an important poll on that page: "Who would you like to see as the kingmaker of the GOP"?
low preference guy
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 16,097
I actually think that allowing corporations to donate whatever they want is better than not allowing them to donate whatever they want. I think it could encourage people to see the injustice and demand that all restrictions from individuals donations are also removed.
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
Maybe I wasn't clear. I was saying it was fine except that when ONLY they can do it it is backassward. And the gap until individuals can can be painful. Cronyism already works for corporations as it is.
Nathan Hale
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,155
Most corporations are owned by the middle class. I have a corporation that runs my small business. Corporations aren't tax shelters, there is no tax benefit to running a corporation - if anything it's a double tax because money is taxed on the corporation's profits and then taxed again when it's taken as income. The reason people incorporate is because it's a liability shelter to protect their personal property from the risk of running a business.
Yes, we shouldn't benefit huge corporatists, but most corporations aren't Exxon or Archer Daniels Midland. Just sayin'.
Nathan Hale
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,155
Why I'd wager my tin foil hat that you're right on the money!
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 63,472
C-Corp or S-Corp?
Yes, there are extra taxes when it comes to paying both the employer and employee side of certain payroll taxes like SS (but not income taxes). Which specific circumstances result in double taxation? If your corporation does payroll, and you pay yourself, that is an expense to the corporation, and it is subtracted from profits. It is not taxed as profit for the corporation, and thus it is not double taxed. If personal income taxes were eliminated, there would be no tax (either at the corporate or personal level) on money from profits that you pay yourself.
Yes, most corporation are not Fortune 500, nor are they corporations that serve no other purpose than being tax shelters for the ultra-rich. That doesn't mean that they don't exist. Tax law is influenced by and for the benefit of this "influential" minority rather than the mom and pop companies.
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
ad hominim attacks are pretty unpersuasive. The entire thesis of this thread is that there is bias against Gary. Yet you consider it 'tinfoil hattish' to point out bias against Ron, and favoring Gary.
People who want to take this on certainly should. I would if we were fighting for a real structural change to fix the problem, like sending the debates back to the league of women voters. Otherwise I personally don't see the difference between Gary being left out and Roemer being left out, except that Gary but not Roemer was at least let into the last one, where neither made the polling requirements, either. I don't think the debate organizers should be able to just pick and choose, but I don't see why you would only raise one of the candidates excluded in making that point.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 63,472
Where did you hear that? Just because you do not use your corporation as a tax shelter does not mean it doesn't happen. During the last Congressional hearing on tax policy one of the points of unanimous agreement among tax experts was that corporations are used as tax shelters, and that reducing corporate taxes rates significantly below individual income taxes would create even more incentive for them to be used as tax shelters.
If you want to purchase a jet, fuel it, insure it, pay various support entities and people, etc., you can do that through a corporation, and expenses become a write-off, reducing the taxes. Create multiple corporations to keep them all small. The IRS generally doesn't question Corporate expenses. Try writing off the cost of your pilot or gardener on your personal income taxes, and you will hear from the IRS.
Nathan Hale
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,155
C-Corp, but I'm familiar with S-Corp as well.
Well, the employer side of SS and medicare is deductible, it's not that. It's profit bonuses and dividends - often given to workers.
But to legislate that way is to argue for prohibition of drugs and a host of other infringements because of the small minority that abuses the liberty. I thought the libertarian way was to not legislate to the lowest common denominator. If somebody is really using a corporation as a tax shelter I don't see how they could do this unless their class of corporation is receiving a specific special treatment by the government that could be addressed outside of leveling an income tax.
Similar threads
