[subego]

@besson

See the post just above your last one.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not a financial mastermind at all, but if even I can find loopholes in these suggestions, it is probably not a great policy position.

To repeat what I said on the last page, I used a programming analogy.

You've been presented with a four word proposal for a piece of software, and are complaining how the code has memory leaks.

There is no code yet.


By your reasoning NFPs shouldn't exist because everyone could just claim they're an NFP. Why is the phantom proprietorship loophole not possible to close when the NFP one is?

[Waragainstsleep]

You would cease to let yourself be employed by the company you really work for, register your own recruitment agency or consultancy practice instead and then that "company" would bill your employer and only pay you 2% or whatever they can get away with by law. That way the fake agency pays no tax on 98% of your earnings and then because they only pay you a few cents per hour, you get your rent and bills paid for you by the "company" too. They'd own your house and let you live there free, even if they pay a mortgage on it. Company car (on finance). You get the idea.

You can skew the numbers so this isn't practical for everyone, perhaps by using the minimum wage or something, but nothing would stop people banding together to do this if they needed to so unless you plan to ban subcontracting and employment agencies how do you close this loophole?

[subego]

How is this loophole any different from the "loophole" where I get deductions for business expenses?

I can just say everything is a business expense, right? Won't end up in jail for that, right?

[subego]

If I've learned anything from this thread, it's that none of you guys should be trying out tax fraud.

[Waragainstsleep]

Yeah but currently you expense everything so you don't pay income tax on it. If companies aren't taxed, you don't have to expense everything because you can make a profit without paying tax on it. You just have to justify the company owning or paying for it as a perk.

[subego]

If we were to switch to a system where businesses don't get taxed, whether a perk counts as income would be subject to different rules.

I could be off base, but the complaints seem to be based on what would go down if we just bolted the idea on to our current tax system.

That won't work, and I'm not trying to claim it will.

[subego]

I'm surprised I'm not getting any philosophical disagreement.

[subego]

There is something of a philosophical bent to the discussion, no?

I mean, we're not going to stop taxing businesses anytime soon.

Probably the best argument I've heard against the proposal is that it's too late. Pandora's box has been opened, and you can't put the shit back in.

This doesn't invalidate the philosophy however, which is the money in the end is going to come from individuals, the split system is just passing the buck, and taking a hammer to the economy while we're at it.

[andi*pandi]

Ok, here we go: if we don't tax businesses, they become even bigger welfare queens than they are?

[subego]

I'm generally anti-government subsidy, especially if we're offering the best tax incentives ever.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm generally anti-government subsidy, especially if we're offering the best tax incentives ever.

Yeah, absolutely cut off all forms of corporate welfare if taxes are eliminated. Hell, we should eliminate it now regardless, IMO.